Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No.284 of 1975, decided on 22nd January, 1985.

‑‑S.161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947), S.5(2)‑‑Raiding Magistrate not only seeing accused receiving tainted currency notes from complainant but also hearing conversation between them‑‑Money recovered from physical possession of accused which also giving rise to presumption that same was received as illegal gratification‑‑Prosecution witnesses quite independent having no serious enmity with accused‑‑No inherent infirmity was found in statements of witnesses‑‑Guilt of accused, held, proved in circumstances.

‑‑S.161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947). S.5(2)‑‑Juris diction‑‑Settlement employee‑‑Notification No.SOG‑111‑2‑4/72, dated 1‑4‑1972, Government Endorsement No.SOG‑II‑6‑178/71, dated 4‑1‑1972, Notifications Nos. S.R.O. 643(1)/71, S.R.O. 644(1)/71, S.R.O. 645(1)/71 and S.R.O. 646(1)/71 showing accused no more servant of Central Government at time of commission of crime‑‑Sanction order and charge framed by Provincial Special Judge, held, legal.‑‑[Jurisdiction].

Ch. Muhammad Bakhsh for Appellant.

Muhammad Rafiq Arif for the State.

Date of hearing: 23rd December, 1984.

This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of the learned, Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Lahore whereby he on 31‑3‑1975 convicted Muhammad Aslam appellant under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption .act, 1947 and sentenced him to 9 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.100 in default thereof two months' R.I.

2. The appellant was a Lower Division Clerk, in the office of Settlement Commissioner, Lahore. The charge against him was that he demanded bribe from Farhat Ali complainant, received Rs.25 before and Rs.75 at the time of raid as illegal gratification for the issuance of a copy of P.T.D. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case, prosecution examined six witnesses. Farhat Ail P.W.4 appeared to prove demand as well as acceptance of illegal gratification from him by the appellant. Abdul Ghani Inspector A.C.E. P.W.3, Muhammad Fazil Shah Inspector A.C.E. P.W.5 and Muhammad Rafiq Gill Magistrate P.W.6 were produced to prove the acceptance by and recovery of Rs.75 from the appellant. They supported the prosecution case. The rest of the evidence is more or less of formal nature.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied all incriminating circumstances. He raised the plea of false implication on account of enmity with Farhat Ali and Dr. Ghulam Shabbir. In defence he produced six witnesses. The gist of the statements of Ghulam Mustafa D.W.1, Muhammad Ismail D.W.4 and Muhammad Arif D.W.5 is that at the time of raid the complainant offered money to the appellant but he refused to accept the same when the Magistrate came and took away the appellant with him. Muhammad Usman D.W.2 the owner of Plot No.44‑F stated that he did not authorise Farhat Ali P.W. to sell the property or to get the copy of P.T.D. from the Settlement Department. Lal Din D.W.3 stated that Dr. Ghulam Shabbir had asked the appellant to certify that the P.T.D. was genuine but he refused to do so. Muhammad Yousaf D.W.6 stated that the complainant wanted to sell 4 Kanals and 10 Marlas of land which was being used as children park to some persons. He (the witness) took into possession a bogus P.T.D. which was in the name of Dr. Ghulam Shabbir, from those persons and got a case of forgery registered at Police Station Misri Shah against Dr, Ghulam Shabbir. Muhammad Aslam appellant had appeared as a witness before the Police in that case.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant being an employee of Central Government could not have been tried by Provincial Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, Lahore and that the order whereby sanction for prosecution was granted was not a valid order inasmuch as the competent authority did not apply its mind and simply signed it. The learned counsel also submitted that the charge framed by the trial Court was defective; that the prosecution witnesses are not reliable; that the Magistrate could not see the passing on of the tainted money from the place where he was standing; that the prosecution evidence suffers from material contradictions and that the investigation of the case was dishonest. 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 have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. I find that the Magistrate had not only seen the appellant receiving the tainted currency notes from the complainant but also had heard conversation between them at the relevant time. The money was recovered from the physical possession of the appellant which also gives rise to the presumption that the same was received as illegal gratification. The complainant stated that the money was received by the appellant as illegal gratification. The prosecution witnesses are quite independent. They had no serious enmity with the appellant. They have successfully stood the test of cross‑examination. I do not see any inherent infirmity in their statements. In view of the reliable statement of the Magistrate there is no reasonable possibility of the defence version that the appellant had refused to accept money, being true. For all these reasons I am convinced that the prosecution has brought home the guilt to the appellant through truthful witnesses. As for the question of the juris diction of the learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Lahore to try the appellant, I find that in‑view of the Notifications No.SOG‑III‑2‑4/72, dated 1‑4‑1972, Government Endorsement No.SOG‑II‑6‑178/71, dated 4‑1‑1972 and Notification Nos. S.R.O. 643(1)/71, No. S.R.O.644(I)/71 No.S.R.O 645(1)/71 and No.S.R.O 646(1)/71 referred in para. No.16 of the judgment of the trial Court, the appellant was no more servant o the Central Government at the time of the commission of the crime. I also do not see any illegality in the sanction order. The charge framer by the trial Court is quite perfect.

7. For what has been stated above, there being no merit, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall surrender himself before the trial Court immediately. The trial Court shall also issue warrants for his arrest and detention.

M. A. K. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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