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. 681 of 1984, heard on 23rd December, 1984.
‑‑‑S.161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947), S.5(2)‑‑Trap case‑‑Bribery‑‑Magistrate and Inspector not hearing conversation between accused and complainant at time of passing of tainted currency notes‑ Statement of complainant, to show nature of transaction, remaining in field but unsafe to rely on his uncorroborated testimony as he being a decoy witness‑‑Recovery of tainted notes admitted‑‑Plea taken by accused might be true‑‑Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted.
Sh. Nisar Qutab for Appellant.
Faizur Rehman for the State.
Date of hearing: 23rd December, 1984.
This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption whereby he on 15‑12‑1984 convicted Akbar Ali appellant under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to 6 months R.I. and a fine of Rs.3,000 in default thereof to further R.I. for two months.
2. The appellant was a Patwari. The charge against him was that he demanded and accepted Rs. 200 as illegal gratification from Ghulam Abbas P.W.1. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, prosecution examined 4 witnesses. Ghulam Abbas P.W.1 appeared to prove demand as well as acceptance of illegal gratification from him by the appellant. Abdul Rashid Inspector, P.W.3 and Muhammad Asghar Qureshi, Magistrate P.W.4. were produced to prove the recovery of tainted currency notes 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 while admitting the receipt of tainted currency notes and recovery thereof from him, explained that the same were given to him as (NYUNDRA) on Aqiqa of his sons. In defence he produced two witnesses.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and that the tainted currency notes were not accepted 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 with care. I find that the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the appellant has not only an admitted but also a proved fact and as such, the material question for determination is whether the same were accepted as illegal gratification or not. Since the Magistrate and the Inspector had neither heard any conversation between the appellant and the complainant, therefore, so far as the nature of transaction is concerned, the statement of Ghulam Abbas complainant, P.W.1 alone remains in the field. He being a decoy witness, it would be highly unsafe to place implicit reliance on his uncorroborated testimony. In the circumstances of the case, the possibility that the plea taken by the appellant, might be true cannot be excluded. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts.
7. For what has been stated above, giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charges.
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