Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Appeals- Nos. 524 and 525 of 1977, decided on 11th July 1984.
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--
---S.161--Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5 (2)--Bribe- Question for determination whether tainted money receipt of which was admitted by accused was bribe or not--Magistrate and Circle Officer not hearing talk which preceded passing on of tainted currency notes to accused--Decoy witnesses produced by prosecution, statement of one not corroborating with statement of other--Reasonable possibility that money was given to accused as loan not ruled out--Prosecution failing to establish its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt--Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted.
Ch. Mushtaq Masood and Khalid Farooq Tiwana for Appellant.
Hafiz Ghulam Bari for the State.
Date of hearing: 4th July, 1984.
These two Criminal Appeals Nos. 524 and 525 of 1977 arise from the judgments, dated 11-6-1977 whereby the learned Special Judge Anti- Corruption, Lahore convicted Nazir Ahmad appellant for receiving Rs.120 from Abdul- Aziz P.W.2 and Rs.70 from Muhammad Yousaf P.W.1 respectively as illegal gratification to supply copies of Khasra Girdawari and sentenced him to one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs.500 in default thereof six months R.1. in each case. I propose to dispose of these two appeals through this single judgment.
2. The appellant way working as Petwari. The charge against him is that the he demanded Rs.120 from Abdul Aziz P.W.2 as illegal gratification. He received Rs.20 Lahore the raid and Rs.100 on the day of raid which are subsequently recovered from him by Ghulam Dastgir M.I.C P.W.5. Further he demanded and accepted Rs.70 as illegal gratification from. Muhammad Yousaf P.W.2 for the supply of the copies of revenue record. The appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses. Muhammad Yousaf P.W.1 and Abdul Aziz P.W.2 appeared to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe money by the appellant from them. Rao Muhammad Ayub Circle Officer Anti-Corruption P.W.3 and Ghulam Dastgir M.I.C. P.W.5 were produced to prove the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the appellant. They supported the prosecution case. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr. P.C., the appellant denied the incriminating circumstances. While admitting the recovery of tainted money from him, he explained that Muhammad Yousaf P.W. had come to him on 29-10-1974 anal obtained copies of revenue record. On 29-10-1974 Muhammad Yousaf and Abdul Aziz met him in a hotel opposite Tehsil Office, Gujranwala. One Akbar Patwari had obtained a loan of its.'W00 from him sometime before the raid. Muhammad Yousaf and Abdul Aziz had given him Rs.170 towards the loan advanced by 'rim to Muhammad Akbar.' They also asked him that the balance of Rs.20 will be paid to him on the next day. In defence he produced Khushi Muhammad l1atwari D.W.1.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecution has failed to prove That the tainted currency notes were given to the appellants as bribe. Conversely the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the receipt of the tainted currency notes valuing Rs.170 having been admitted by the appellant, the material question of determination is as to whether the same were given to him as bribe or not. Since the Magistrate and the rule Officer had not heard the talk which preceded the passing on of the tainted currency notes to the appellant therefore, the statement of Muhammad Yousaf and Abdul Aziz, the complainants remain in the field. Since both are the decoy witness therefore, statement of one cannot corroborate that of the other. There is no corroboration of their statements that the money was given to the appellant as bribe. In this view of tile matter 6 am of tire view that the reasonable possibility of the correctness of the statement of the appellant that Rs.170 were given to him towards the loan obtained by Muhammad Akbar Patwari cannot be excluded. For all these reasons I am convinced that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt its case against the appellant.
For what has been stated above, giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charges in both the cases. He is on bail. He stands discharged of the bail bonds.
M . Y . H .
Appeals accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer