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. 1033 of 1977, decided on 5th July, 1984.
‑‑‑S.161‑‑Bribery‑‑[Trap‑case]‑‑Benefit of doubt‑‑ Accused neither demanding nor accepting bribe nor tainted currency notes recovered from him‑‑Tainted currency notes allegedly received by co‑accused from complainant, handed over to accused who further passed on same to a prosecution witness but no talk between accused and co‑accused heard at time money changed hands‑‑Held: Even no case of abetment of offence punishable under S. 161, P.P.C., made out against accused‑ Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted, in circumstances.
Date of hearing: 5th July, 1984.
The criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Senior Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, whereby he on 15‑11‑1977 convicted Manah Masih appellant under section 161, P. P. C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to 2 years' R.I. Manah Masih appellant was tried alongwith Ghulam Rasool Naib‑Darogha, Lahore Municipal Corporation, Gulberg Circle, Lahore.
2. Manah Masih was a sweeper in Lahore Municipal Corporation, Gulberg Circle, Lahore. The charge against him was that Ghulam Rasool co‑accused demanded and obtained Rs.40 from Sharif Masih, P.W.2 as illegal gratification for not disturbing his service and thereafter handed over the said amount to Manah Masih who took away the same and gave to Siddiq Masih, P.W.3 who produced the G.C. Notes before the Magistrate. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case prosecution examined four witnesses. Sharif Masih complainant, P.W.2 appeared to prove demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant from him. Irshad Ali Shah, Circle Offier, A.C.E., P.W.1 and Abdul Majeed, Magistrate, P.W.4 were produced to prove the acceptance of bribe by Ghulam Rasool co‑accused and its recovery. Siddiq Masih P.W.3 stated that on the day of raid, the tainted currency notes were given to him by Manah Masih which he produced before the Magistrate.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr. P. C., the appellant denied the incriminating circumstances. The appellant and his co‑accused produced 4 witnesses in defence.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts against the appellant.
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 appellant had neither demanded nor accepted bribe from the complainant; that the tainted currency notes were also not recovered from him; that there was no talk between Ghulam Rasool co‑accused and the appellant when the former had given the tainted currency notes to the latter and that the appellant had not abetted the co‑accused in the matter of demand and acceptance of bribe by him. The allegations that when the tainted currency notes were given by the co‑accused to the appellant he took away the same and gave to Siddique Masih P.W.3 do not amount to abetment of offence punishable under section 161, P.P.C./5(2) 47. It may be an offence punishable under section 201, P.P.C. but the appellant was not charged with the same.
7. For what has been stated above, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts against the appellant. Giving him the benefit of doubt, he is acquitted of the charge.
S. G. D. Appellant acquitted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer