Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 1978, heard on 8th July, 1984.

---S.161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)‑‑Bribe‑ Statement of raiding Magistrate vague and not clear as to whether currency notes passed on to accused were given as a bribe‑‑Statement of complainant being uncorroborated testimony of decoy witness not reliable‑‑Prosecution, held, failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt‑‑Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted.

Ghulam Hussain Qureshi for Appellant.

Sh. Muhammad Nawaz for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 8th July, 1984.

This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption Lahore, whereby he on 11‑1‑1978 convicted Abdur Rashid appellant under section 161, P.P.C. and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to imprison ment till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 500 in default thereof to further R.I. for six months.

2. The appellant was working as Patwari. The charge against him is that he demanded Rs.1,000 but accepted Rs. 200 as illegal gratification from Muhammad Sadiq complainant on the day of raid. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses. Muhammad Sadiq complainant P.W.1 appeared to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant. Sikandar Hayat Niazi, Circle Inspector P.W.4 and Ali Aqdas Shehzad Magistrate P.W.5 were produced to prove the recovery of tainted money 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 tainted currency notes. He stated:‑

"I am innocent. In fact Muhammad Ashiq son of Allah Bukhsh caste Rajput resident of Rana Bhatti had to pay Rs. 193/46 as land revenue, 1 demanded from him and he said that he had to take Rs.200 and would give after taking from him. Before the raid I was present in connection with recovery of the land revenue, in village Bagiarwala at the Dera of Shah Muhammad, when Muhammad Ashiq aforesaid brought Muhammad Sadiq complainant to me. Muhammad Sadiq admitted there before me that he had to give Rs.200 to Muhammad Ashiq and further promised that he would pay the land revenue of Muhammad Ashiq as well as that of himself which was only Rs.1.50 at Shahdara on the next day. Therefore, the complainant came to me on the day of raid that he had brought the thing which he promised in Bagiarwala. Then the complainant called me out and gave Rs.200 to me. I accepted that Rs.200 and I told the same to the Raiding Magistrate."

In defence he examined six witnesses.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove that the tainted currency notes were passed on as bribe money. 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 by and the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the complainant by the appellant being an admitted fact, the only question for determination is as to whether the same was accepted as bribe or not. To prove its case, the prosecution relied on the statements of the complainant and Ali Aqdas Shehzad Magistrate. The statement made by the Magistrate appears to be vague inasmuch as he stated that:‑

"the complainant told the accused that he had brought the thing which he had promised at Bagiarwala pertaining to Khasra Girdawari and his job might be done."

From this statement it is not very much clear that the G.C. notes were passed on to the appellant as a bribe money. In this view of the matter, the statement of the complainant alone remains in field. That being uncorroborated testimony of a decoy witness, I am not prepared to place implicit reliance. For all these reasons I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to proved beyond reasonable doubt that the tainted currency notes were given as bribe to the appellant. Giving him the benefit of doubt, he is acquitted of the charges.

M. Y. H. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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