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 Appeals Nos. 572 and 576 of 1981, heard on 2nd October, 1984.
‑‑‑S. 161‑‑Bribery‑‑(Trap‑case)‑‑Benefit of doubt‑‑Neither Raiding Magistrate nor Police Inspector heard any conversation nor witnessed passing on the tainted currency note by one accused to other nor saw anyone placing notes in almirah‑‑Statement of accused before Magistrate recorded immediately after occurrence also exculpatory in nature‑ Statement of complainant alone, being a decoy witness held, could not be relied upon without corrobroration‑‑Conviction and sentence set aside, in circumstances.
Sh. Nisar Qutab for Appellant.
Arif Sajjad for the State.
Date of hearing: 2nd October, 1984.
These two Criminal Appeals Nos. 572/81 by Tariq Mahmood and 576/81 by Abdul Hafeez arise from the judgment of the learned Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, Lahore Camp at Gujranwala, whereby he on 19‑10‑1981 convicted them under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced them to three years' R.I. each. I propose to disposed of these appeals through single judgment.
2. The appellants were working as clerks in the office of the Agriculture Engineering Officer, Gujranwala. The charge against them was that they demanded and then accepted Rs.100 as illegal gratification from Mubarik P.W. 2. They pleaded not guilty.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined three witnesses Mubarik complainant P.W. 2 appeared to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification from him by the appellants. Hameedud Din Bhatti M.S. 30 P.W. 1 and Muhammad Aslam Inspector A.C.E. P.W. 3 were produced to prove recovery of tainted currency notes from them. They supported the prosecution case.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellants while admitting recovery of the tainted currency notes from the almirah threw blame on each other. They did not lead any evidence in defence.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the two witnesses i.e. the Magistrate and the Inspector had neither seen the passing on of the tainted currency notes by the complainant to the appellants nor did they hear the conversation between the complainant and the appellant preceding the handing over of the tainted currency notes, therefore statement of Mubarik Ali P.W. 2 (complainant) alone remains in field upon which it would not be safe to place reliance without independent corroboration. Learned counsel for the State supporting the judgment of the trial Court submitted that the acceptance of the tainted money by the appellants was admitted by Tariq Mahmood in statement which was recorded just after the occurrence and that the tainted currency notes were subsequently recovered from the almirah which was in his custody therefore in the circumstances of the case, the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellants.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the Magistrate and the Inspector neither heard the conversation nor did they see passing on the tainted currency notes by the appellants to Abdul Hafeez appellant. They also did not see Abdul Hafeez appellant further passing on the tainted currency notes to Tariq Mahmood; that they did not see anyone placing the notes in the almirah and that the statement made by Tariq Mahmood co‑accused before the Magistrate immediately after occurrence being exculpatory cannot be used against his co‑accused Abdul Hafeez. As for the acceptance and the nature of the transaction, the statement of complainant alone remains in field. He being a decoy witness, it would not be in accordance with the safe administration of justice in criminal cases to rely upon his evidence without corroboration which is lacking in this case. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges to both the accused.
7. For what has been stated above, giving them the benefit of doubt, the appellants are 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