Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 456 of 1982, heard on 29th January, 198S.

‑‑‑S.5(2)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161‑‑Extra‑judicial confession‑ Evidence of extra‑judicial confession, a weak type of confession‑ Conviction, held, may not be passed without corroboration in material particulars. [Confession].

‑‑‑S.5(2)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161‑‑Extra‑judicial confession by accused, not amounting to confession of acceptance of illegal gratification or any misconduct punishable under S.161, P.P.C. read with S.5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947‑‑Witness who allegedly paid bribe money to accused not produced by prosecution Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted in circumstances.

Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Appellant.

Ch. Imtiaz for the State.

Date of hearing: 29th January, 198S.

This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Judge (Central) Lahore whereby he on 12‑8‑1982 convicted Muhammad Akram appellant under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 in default thereof to further R.I. for three months.

2. The appellant was a store‑keeper in P. U. T. C. Kot Lakhpat, Lahore. The charge against him was that he received Rs.1,000 as illegal gratification from Fazal Khuda for giving him unauctioned spare parts. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined four witnesses. Mahmood Ahmad Beg P.W.1 stated that on 17‑2‑1980 when he was looking after the loading of articles which had been auctioned, Fazal Khuda, the representative of the contractor came with a truck for loading the auctioned articles. He started loading the articles when he (the witness) suspected that the articles which had not been auctioned were also being loaded, so he interrogated the two labourers namely Abdul Majid and Muhammad Rafiq told him that they had already loaded one box containing old spare parts. The representative of the contractor who was very much present there told that the box was obtained by him from the appellant on payment of Rs.700 and that the payment was made in the presence of Abdul Hameed acquitted co‑accused. On this, the witness sent intimation to the Works Manager, Traffic Manager and District Manager. The labourers were made to sit in the Verandah. The truck was checked in the presence of the officers and a wooden box containing generator valuing Rs.17,000/18,000 and some other spare parts were recovered. Muhammad Akram admitted before him and Muhammad Haroon, Works Manager that he had received Rs.600 from the contractor. The appellant then produced Rs.600 taking out the same from his pocket. Muhammad Haroon P.W.2 supported the statement of P.W.1. The rest of the evidence is not of much importance.

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

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution has failed to prove that Rs.600 were received by the appellant as illegal gratification. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the trial Court.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. I find that from para. No.11 of the judgment, it appears that the learned trial Court has based conviction on extra judicial confession made by the appellant before Mahmood Ahmed Beg P.W.1 and Haroon Wasti P.W.2. I have carefully examined the alleged extra‑judicial confession made by the appellant before the two witnesses. I find that Mahmood Ahmed P.W.1 stated that:‑

"Muhammad Akram accused told him that he had received Rs.600 from Fazal Khuda as the price of the above‑mentioned box. He asked him that he should be pardoned for the mistake. I and other officers also interrogated Muhammad Akram accused who in the first instance refused to accept the allegation but later on told us that he had received Rs.600 from the representative of the contractor."

It is thus very much obvious that the statements made before the P.W.1 and P.W.2 do not amount to confession of the acceptance of illegal gratification or any misconduct committed by him punishable under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5 of the P.C.A. 1947. It is well‑settled that evidence of extra‑judicial confession is a Weak type of evidence and conviction may not be based without corroboration in material particulars. In the case in hand the best witness of the transaction namely Fazal Khuda who allegedly had paid Rs.600 to the appellant have not been produced by the prosecution that being the 1B position, I am of the view that it would be unsafe to maintain conviction on the so‑called confession made by the appellant before the two witnesses.

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

M. A. K. 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.