Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 388 of 1977, heard on 26th January, 1985.

---S.161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417‑‑Magistrate not hearing clearly whether money was received as illegal gratification or as "Ghee money"‑ Subsequent conduct of accused showing resistance raising hue and cry and made free by people, not necessarily an incriminating circumstance as innocent person might have acted in such manner‑‑Reasonable possibility that tainted currency notes were in fact "Ghee money" being true, existing‑‑Accused, held, rightly acquitted in circumstances.

---S.417‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)‑‑Appeal against acquittal‑‑Accused once acquitted, held, strong and exception grounds required for interference with judgment of acquittal‑‑Such grounds not found in judgment, appeal against acquittal dismissed in circumstances. ‑[Appeal against acquittal].

Jamal‑ur‑Rehman Durrani for the State.

Ch. M.S. Shad for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 26th January, 1985.

This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge (Central) Lahore, whereby he on 9‑12‑1976 acquitted Kh. Manzoor Ahmad respondent of the charge under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

2. The respondent‑ was working as S.D.O., Electricity WAPDA WAPDA House, Lahore. The charge against him was that he demanded Rs.500 but accepted Rs.400 as illegal gratification from Zafar Ullah Khan, Contractor, P.W.1 for getting his bills passed. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case prosecution examined 8 witnesses. Zafar Ullah Khan P.W.1 and Muhammad Iqbal P.W.2 appeared to prove demand as well as acceptance of illegal gratification by the respondent from the complainant. Safdar Mehmood, Magistrate. P.W.5 and Iqbal Hussain, Inspector F.I.A. P.W.8 were produced to prove recovery of tainted currency notes from the respondent. They supported the prosecution case. The rest of the evidence is not of much importance.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the respondent denied all incriminating circumstances. While admitting the recovery of tainted currency notes from him he stated:‑

"Some days before the raid I had sent Rs.400 to Muhammad Iqbal P.W. through Mr. Arif of Shadiwal for the purchase of Ghee. On 1‑3‑1974 I received Ruqqa Exh. D. B. from Muhammad Iqbal in which he had expressed his inability to purchase the Ghee. He had also written that he or Zafarullah complainant would come within a few days and would return the money. On 6‑3‑1974 Muhammad Iqbal and Zafar Ullah complainant came to my house. Muhammad Iqbal gave me Rs. 400 saying that the said money related to the purchase of Ghee. I accepted the money in good faith. The moment, they moved away, some people came there and took away the said money from me telling that the same was illegal gratification. I protested that I had not accepted any illegal gratification and that the money which I had received related to the purchase of Ghee. Nobody identified himself as a Magistrate. I did make a noise to show my innocence."

In defence he produced no witness.

5. Learned counsel for the State/appellant contends that the prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt to the appellant; that the prosecution evidence was quite dependable; that the reasons given by the learned trial Court are cogent; that the conduct of the respondent immediately after the raid also speaks against him and that the respondent has been acquitted without legal and factual justification. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent 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 have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. The acceptance by and recovery of the tainted currency notes from the respondent being an admitted fact, the sole question for consideration is as to whether the money was received as illegal gratification or not. I find that Muhammad Iqbal P.W.2 in whose presence the respondent allegedly had received illegal gratification has not supported the prosecution case. In cross‑examination he, rather, supported the defence version that the tainted currency notes were received by the appellant as "Ghee money" and not as illegal gratification. He also admitted the execution of Ruqqa Exh. D.B. showing that the respondent had given money for the purchase of Ghee. Since Muhammad Iqbal has made divergent statements, therefore, he appears to be a basically dishonest witness and it would be in accordance with the safe administration of justice in criminal cases that his statement is excluded from consideration. Safdar Mehmood, Magistrate P.W.5 claims to have heard the conversation between the respondent and the complainant. He stated that within his view and hearing the complainant gave Rs.400 to the respondent and asked him to hand over the bills to him upon which the respondent took the money and said that the bill would reach him within 1/2 days. The conversation, thus, appears to be somewhat vague. It is not clear from what was heard by the Magistrate, that the money was received by the respondent as illegal gratification and not as "Ghee money". The subsequent conduct of the respondent that he showed resistance, raised hue and, cry and was made free by the people of the Illaqa, is not necessarily an incriminating circumstance, inasmuch as, an innocent person might have A acted in toe manner in which, the appellant acted at the time of raid. I am of the view that the prosecution had to prove that the tainted currency notes were received by the respondent as illegal gratification. In the circumstances of the case, the reasonable possibility that the tainted currency notes were in fact the "Ghee money", being true, cannot be excluded. Since I have not believed the prosecution case. I need not discuss the, genuineness of Ruqqa Exh. D.B. It is well‑settled ‑i that once an accused person is acquitted strong and exceptional grounds would be required for interferance with the judgment of acquittal which I do not see in the case in hand. For all these reasons, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the State/appellant hold no water. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

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.