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. 515 of 1984, heard on 30th January, 1985.
---S.161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)‑‑Witness‑‑Recovery of tainted, notes admitted by accused‑‑ Magistrate and Inspector neither seeing transaction nor hearing conversation between accused and complainant at time of raid‑‑Complainant being decoy witness, unsafe to rely on his uncorroborated testimony‑‑Plea taken by accused that he had given alleged bribe money to complainant for purchase of wheat which was returned on date of occurrence, held, might be true‑‑Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted.‑‑[Bent of doubt].
Munir Ahmad Bhatti for Appellant.
Aziz Qureshi for the State.
Date of hearing: 30th January, 1985.
This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Sargodha whereby he on 15‑10‑1984 convicted Irtiza Khan appellant under section 161, P.P.C and sentenced him to 10 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.6,000 in default thereof further R.I for six months.
2. The, appellant was serving as a Patwari. The charge against him was that he demanded and accepted Rs.800 as illegal gratification from Muhammad Aslam complainant P.W.1. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case prosecution examined three witnesses. Muhammad Aslam P.W.1 appeared to prove demand as well as acceptance of illegal gratification from him by the appellant. Mr. Abdul Razzaq Khan A.C.E. P.W.2 and Ch. Ghulam Nabi Magistrate P.W.3 were produced to prove illegal gratification by and recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant. They supported the prosecution case.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied all incriminating circumstances. While admitting the recovery of tainted currency notes from him he explained that he had given Rs.800 to the complainant for the purchase of wheat which he returned on the date of occurrence and got him involved in the case because in the meantime he had become annoyed with him. In defence five witnesses were produced.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that prosecution has failed to prove that the tainted currency notes were accepted by the appellant as illegal gratification. 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 recovery of tainted currency notes being not only a proved, but also an admitted fact, the question for determination is as to whether the same were received by the appellant as illegal gratification or not. I find that the Magistrate anti the Inspector had not seen the transaction nor they had heard any conversation between the appellant and the complainant at the time of raid. As far the nature of transaction, the statement of Muhammad Aslam complainant alone remains in field. He being a decoy witness, it would be unsafe to rely on his uncorroborated testimony. In the circumstances of the case reasonable possibility that the plea taken by the accused might be true cannot be excluded.
7. For what has been stated above, giving him the benefit of doubt the appellant is acquitted of the charge.
M. A. K. Appeal accepted
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer