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 Appeal No. 1093 of 1978, heard on 10th July, 1984.
---S.161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)‑‑Bribery‑ (Trap‑case)‑‑Benefit of doubt‑‑Conversation between accused and complainant which preceded passing of tainted money, not heard by Raiding Magistrate and other members of raid party‑‑Complainant, solitary witness of demand and acceptance of tainted currency notes as illegal gratification, not produced by prosecution‑‑Mere recovery of tainted currency notes from accused, held, would not prove commission of offence under S. 161, P.P.C.‑‑Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted, in circumstances‑‑[Benefit of doubt].
Husnat Ahmad for Appellant.
Sharif Butt for the State.
Date of hearing: 10th July, 1984.
This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the Learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore-I whereby he on 9-12-1978 convicted the appellant Muhammad Mukhtar under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to two years' R.I.
2. The appellant was posted as Sub-Inspector, Police Station Dijkot, District Faisalabad. The charge against him is that he demanded and then accepted Rs. 125 as illegal gratification from one Asghar All, the complainant for producing the record of case F.I.R No. 127, dated 6-9-1974 in connection with the cancellation of bail of the accused therein. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses. Muhammad Rafiq P.W.1, Riaz Hashmat Khan D.S.P. P.W.4 and Shaukat Ali Magistrate P.W.5 were produced to prove the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the appellant. 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. While admitting the recovery of the tainted currency notes from him he explained that the same were not received by him as bribe but in fact given to him for payment to the counsel. In defence he did not lead any evidence.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove that the tainted currency notes were received by the appellant as illegal gratification. The learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I feel inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant inasmuch as Asghar Ali complainant who was the solitary witness of demand and acceptance of tainted currency notes as illegal gratification has not been produced by the prosecution. Muhammad Rafiq P.W.1, Riaz Hashmat D.S.P. P.W.4 and Shaukat Ali Magistrate P.W.3 had not heard the talk between the complainant and the appellant which preceded the passing on of the tainted money. In this view of the matter I am of the opinion that mere recovery of the tainted currency notes from the appellant does not A prove commission of offence punishable under section 161, P P C. read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
7. For what has been stated above, giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charge.
S. G. D. Appeal allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer