Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1984, heard on 17th December, 1984.

---S.161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947), S.5 (2)‑‑Evidence, appreciation of‑‑Witnesses quite independent and accused could not show any enmity with them‑‑Any material contradiction /discrepancies in statements of witnesses not pointed out‑‑Recovery of currency notes from pocket of accused giving statutory presumption that money was received as illegal gratification‑‑Accused not explaining recovery of tainted notes from him rather denying factum of recovery‑‑Accused changing his statement as made before Magistrate after raid and at trial stage‑‑Accused, held, rightly convicted in circumstances.

S.M. Tayyab for Appellant.

Ramzan Khokhar for the State.

Date of hearing: 17th December, 1984.

This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption whereby he on 19‑7‑1984 convicted Muhammad Nawaz appellant under section 161, P.P.C. and sentenced him to 11 montns' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5,000 in default thereof further R.I. for five months.

2. The appellant was a Patwari. The charge against him was that he demanded and accepted Rs.500 as illegal gratification from Muhammad Ramzan complainant. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case prosecution examined three witnesses. Muhammad Ramzan P.W. 2 appeared to prove demand as well as acceptance of illegal gratification from him by the appellant. Malik Safdar Ali Magistrate P.W. 1 and Abdul Razzaq, Circle officer P.W.3 were produced to prove the tainted currency notes from him. They have supported the prosecution case.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied all incriminating circumstances. In defence no witness was produced.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; that the prosecution witnesses are not reliable and that the money was in fact forcible put in then pocket of the appellant. 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 complainant, Magistrate and the Circle Officer are quite independent witnesses. Learned counsel has not been able to show any enmity of the witnesses with the appellant. He has also failed to point out material contradiction /discrepancies in their statements. I do not see any inherent infirmity in their evidence. The complainant has stated that the appellant had not only demanded but also accepted Rs.500 as illegal gratification from him. The Magistrate and the Circle Officer had recovered tainted currency notes from the pocket of the appellant. This recovery gives rise to the statutory presumption that the money was received by the appellant as illegal gratification. Strangely enough, the appellant at the trial stage did not care to explain the recovery of the tainted currency notes from him. He rather denied the factum of recovery. He did not admit to have stated before the Magistrate after the raid that the tainted currency notes were put in his pocket by the complainant. He did not struck to his statement at trial stage. For all these reasons. I am convinced that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant. The sentence awarded to him is also not excessive. The substantive sentence maintained in this appeal shall run concurrently with the sentence maintained in Criminal Appeal No. 356 of 1984.

7. For what has been stated above, 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.