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.185 of 1984, heard on 26th January, 1985.
---S.161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947), S.5(2)‑‑Raiding Magistrate and Inspector not hearing conversation between accused and complainant at time of raid‑‑Complainant being a decoy witness, placing of implicit reliance on his sole uncorroborated testimony, highly unsafe‑ Recovery of tainted money admitted by accused‑‑Reasonable possibility that explanation given by accused might be true, existing‑‑Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted in circumstances.
Raja Muhammad Muzaffar for Appellant.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing: 26th January, 1985.
This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Lahore whereby he on 11‑4‑1984 convicted Muhammad Amjad appellant under section 161, P. P. C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to six months' R.I. on each count and a fine of Rs.2,000 in default thereof 3 months' R.I.
2. The appellant was vaccinator. The charge against him was that he demanded and accepted Rs.200 as illegal gratification from Muhammad Sadiq P.W. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case prosecution examined 3 witnesses. Muhammad Sadiq complainant, P.W.1 appeared to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant from him. Mr. Akhtar Ali, Inspector A.C.E. P.W.2 and Syed Ali Aqdas Shahzad, Magistrate, P.W.3 were produced to prove the recovery of tainted currency notes from him. They supported the prosecution case.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. While admitting the recovery of tainted currency notes from him, he explained that the same were given to him for handing over to Masood, Darogha. In defence two witnesses were produced.
5. The learned counsel submits that the prosecution has failed to prove that the tainted currency notes were received by the appellant as illegal gratification. No one has appeared on behalf of the State to oppose this appeal.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the record. I find that the recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant having been admitted, the material question for determination is as to whether the tainted currency notes were received by the appellant as illegal gratification or not. I find that the Magistrate and the Inspector had not heard any conversation between the complainant and the appellant at the time of raid and, as such, so far as the nature of transaction is concerned, the statement of the complainant alone remains in the field. He being a decoy witness it would be highly unsafe to place implicit reliance on his uncorroboratea testimony. In the circumstances of the case, the reasonable possibility of the explanation given by the appellant being true cannot be excluded.
7. For what has been stated above, giving him the benefit of doubt the appellant is acquitted of the charge. The fine if deposited be refunded to him.
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