Find a Lawyer

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--

---S. 161/34--illegal gratification--Decoy witness--Tainted currency notes not recovered from physical possession of accused--Raiding Magistrate and Sub-Inspector not hearing talk between accused and complainant preceding passing of money--Demand of illegal ,gratification and its payment available only from complainant--Placing of implicit reliance on uncorroborated testimony of a decoy witness, held, would be unsafe- Prosecution, therefore, failed to prove, its case beyond reasonable doubt--Accused was acquitted.

Sh. Ghias-ud-Din for Appellant.

Zulfiqar Haider for the State.

Date of hearing: 28th January, 1985.

This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Sargodha camp at Faisalabad whereby he on 3-1-1985, convicted Shakir Hussain appellant and his co-accused Muhammad Ramzan under section 161/34, P.P.C. and sentenced Shakir Hussain appellant to seven months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.5,000 in default thereof to further R.I. for five months. The co-accused was sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs.5,000 in default thereof to further R.I. for five months.

2. The appellant was reader to Ziladar, Irrigation Department, Jaranwala. The charge against him and his co-accused was that they in collusion with each other demanded and accepted Rs.140 as illegal gratification from Ahmed All complainant P.W. 1. They denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined four witnesses. Ahmed Ali P.W. 1 appeared to prove the demand as well as acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant and his co-accused. Khusru Pervez M.I.C. P.W. 9 Muhammad Inayat Ullah S.I. A.C.E. P.W. 2 were produced to prove the recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant. Muhammad Ashraf P.W. 3 stated that immediately before the raid, tainted currency notes were given to him by Muhammad Ramzan co-accused. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. In defence he produced two witnesses.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to prove demand as well as acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.

6. 1 have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with .care. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. I find that the tainted currency notes were not recovered from the physical possession of the appellant, that the Magistrate and the S.I. A.C.E. did not hear talk between the appellant and the complainant preceding the passing on of the tainted currency notes to Muhammad Ramzan co-accused. So far as the demand of illegal gratification and its payment to Muhammad Ramzan on the direction of A the appellant is concerned, the statement of complainant alone is available on the file. He being a decoy witness, it would be unsafe to place implicit reliance on his uncorroborated testimony. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

For which has been stated above, giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charge.

S.A

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.