Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 279 of 1979, decided on 30th October, 1984.

‑‑‑S.5(2)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417‑‑Appeal against acquittal‑‑Strong and exceptional grounds required for interference with order of acquittal.

‑‑‑S.50)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417‑‑Appeal against acquittal‑‑Charge of illegal gratifi cation‑‑Statement of Magistrate appearing to be somewhat vague‑ Magistrate in cross‑examination made a statement different to what he said in examination‑in‑chief‑‑Trial Court consciously applying its mind to evidence on record and giving sound and cogent reasons in support of its conclusion‑‑No strong and exceptional grounds existing to interfere with order of acquittal‑‑Order maintained.

Jamal‑ur‑Rehman Durrani for the State.

Sh. Nisar Qutab for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 30th October, 1984.

This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Special Judge (Central) Lahore whereby he on 15‑10‑1978 acquitted Muhammad Muzaffar respondent of the charge under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

2. The respondent was posted as Line Superintendent WAPDA, Kasur. The charge against him was that he demanded and accepted Rs.400 as illegal gratification from Muhammad Bakhsh P.W.5. He pleaded not guilty. To prove its case prosecution examined five witnesses. Muhammad Bakhah P.W.5 appeared to prove demand as well as acceptance of Rs.400 as illegal gratification from him by the respondent. Zulfiqar Ali Magistrate P.W.3 and Iqbal Hussain Inspector Police, F.I.A. Lahore P.W.4 were produced to prove the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the respondent. They supported the prosecution case. Rest of the evidence is of formal nature.

3. 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 explained that the same were given to him by the complainant for the purchase of electricity meter for him. In defence he produced four witnesses. D.W.1 Khalid Zia Line Superin tendent stated that the complainant had asked the respondent to purchase meter for him and the respondent told him that the price of the meter was between Rs.90 and Rs.100. D.W.2 made similar statement. D.W.3 produced record to show that the department used to charge official fee for testing of private meters. Abdul Majid D.W.4 produced F.I.R. No.183 of 1978 of Police Station City Kasur to show that the respondent had got registered case against Nasir a friend of the complainant.

4. Mr. Jamal‑ur‑Rehman Durrani, the learned Public Prosecutor contends that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge against respondent; that the Magistrate not only saw the passing on of the tainted currency notes to respondent but also heard conversation between the complainant and the respondent and as such there was no legal and factual justification for the trial Court to acquit the respondent of the charge.

5. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondent while supporting the judgment of the trial Court submitted that the conversation heard by the Magistrate rather supports the plea of the respondent.

6. Keeping in mind the principle laid down by the superior Courts for the appreciation of appeal against acquittal that once an accused is acquitted strong and exceptional grounds are required for interference. I have considered the arguments of the parties with care. I find that the statement of the Magistrate appears to be somewhat vague. In examination‑in‑chief he stated that he heard the complainant saying that he was thankful that Rs.200 was accepted by the accused for each connection whereas he was getting Rs.300 for each connection from others. But in cross‑examination he stated:‑

"I do not remember the conversation between the complainant and the accused and I cannot say definitely whether the word used by the complainant was for each connection or for each meter. I did not mention in my raid report the factum of conversation between the complainant and the accused."

I further find that the trial Court has consciously applied its mind to the evidence on record and given sound and cogent reasons in support of its conclusion. After going through the judgment of the trial Court it cannot be said that the conclusion arrived at by it were not possible from the evidence on record. I do not see any strong and exceptional ground to interfere with the judgment of acquittal.

7. For what has been stated above, the appeal is dismissed.

M. Y. H. 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.