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.608 of 1982, heard on 5th November, 1984.
---S.161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)‑‑Illegal gratification‑‑Raiding Magistrate and Inspector not hearing any conversation between accused and complainant preceding passing of tainted notes to accused‑‑Only statement of complainant not believed‑ Accused stuck to plea taken immediately after occurrence‑‑Plea of accused that tainted money was received as return of loan, held, may be true‑ Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted.
Ali Ahmad Malik for Appellant.
Bashir Baig for the State.
Date of hearing: 5th November, 1984.
This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, Lahore whereby he on 4‑12‑1982 convicted Ghulam Mustafa appellant under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to one year's R. I.
2. The appellant was a veterinary Stock Assistant. The charge against him was that he demanded and accepted Rs.40 as illegal gratification from Riaz Ahmad P.W.1. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case prosecution examined four witnesses. Riaz Ahmad P.W.1 appeared to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification from him by the appellant. Ch. Muhammad Safdar Jajja Inspector P.W.2 and Malik Amjad Hussain, Magistrate P.W.4 were produced to prove the recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant. Zulfiqar Ali Shah P.W.3 Inspector partly investigated the case. The witnesses supported the prosecution case.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr. P. C. the appellant while admitting the recovery of tainted currency notes from him explained that the complainant had taken Rs.100 from him as a loan. Out of which he gave back Rs.60 earlier and paid the balance before the raid. In defence he produced two witnesses who supported the plea of the appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that prosecution has failed to prove that the tainted money was accepted by the appellant as illegal gratification. On the other hand 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 recovery of the tainted currency notes from the appellant being an admitted fact the only question for consideration and determination is whether the same were received by him as illegal gratification or not. I find that the Magistrate and Inspector did not hear any conversation between the appellant and the complainant preceding the passing on of the tainted currency notes to the appellant, and as such so far as the nature of the transaction is concerned, statement of Riaz Ahmad complainant alone remains in field upon which I do not feel inclined to place implicit reliance. In the circumstances of the case the reasonable possibility that the plea taken by the appellant immediately after the occurrence, to which he stuck at the time of trial, 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.
A. A. Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer