Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 1985, decided on 9th February, 1985.

Penal Code (XLV

of 1860)--

---S. 161/34--Illegal gratification--Tainted currency notes not recovered from accused--Raiding Magistrate and Sub-Inspector not hearing talk between accused and complainant preceding passing of money--Demand and payment of illegal gratification only from complainant's mouth--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.

S. Ehtasham Qadir Shah for Petitioner.

Irshad Ahmad for the State.

Date of hearing: 9th February, 1985.

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

2. The appellant was an employee of Irrigation Department, Jaranwala. , .Shakir Hussain co-accused was Reader to Ziladar of the same department. The charge against the appellant and his co-accused was that they in collusion with each other demanded and accepted Rs.140 as illegal gratification from Ahmed Ali complainant P.W. 1. They denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3, To prove its case prosecution examined four witnesses. Ahmad Ali P.W. 1 was produced to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant and his co-accused. Muhammad lnayat Ullah S.I. A.C.E. P.W.2, Muhammad Ashraf P.W. 3 and Kharu Pervez M.I.C. P.W.4 were produced to prove the recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant. Muhammad Ashraf P.W. 3 stated that just before the raid tainted currency notes were given to him by the appellant which he was counting when the Magistrate came and recovered from him.

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

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to prove demand as well as acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant from the complainant. On the other hand 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 feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. 1 find that the tainted currency notes were not recovered from the physical possession of the appellant; that the Magistrate and the S.I. Anti-Corruption did hot hear any talk between the appellant and the complainant preceding the passing on of the tainted currency notes to the appellant. As far the demand of illegal A gratification and its payment to the appellant on the direction of Shakir Hussain co-accused, the statement of complainant alone remains in field. He being a decoy witness it would be unsafe to place implicit reliance on his uncorroborated testimony. For all these reasons, 1 am of the view that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

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

8. Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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