Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No.615 of 1984, heard on 24th March, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)‑‑Bribery‑ [Trap case]‑‑Complainant stating that accused had not only demanded but also accepted tainted currency notes as illegal gratification‑‑Accused explaining receipt of tainted money before Magistrate as price of printed forms but did not stick to same at trial‑‑Statutory presumption that money was received by accused as illegal gratification, not rebutted by defence‑‑Conviction and sentence maintained in circumstances.

‑‑‑S. 161‑‑Prevention of Corruption, Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)‑‑Statement before raiding Magistrate, value of‑‑Statement made just after occurrence, not a substantive piece of evidence but could only be used to corroborate or contradict accused.

Raja Muhammad Muzaffar for Appellant.

Syed Aftab Sherazi for the State.

Date of hearing: 24th March, 1985.

This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Sargodha whereby he on 10‑11‑1984 convicted Atta Muhammad appellant under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to imprisonment till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs.1,000 in default thereof further R.I. for two months.

2. The appellant was a Junior Clerk in the Office of Superintending Engineer Highways Sargodha. The charge against him was that he demanded and accepted Rs.20 as illegal gratification from Dost Muhammad P.W.2 for supplying him application forms Exhs. P.A. & P.B. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case, prosecution examined 4 witnesses. Dost Muhammad P.W.2 appeared to prove demand as well as acceptance of illegal gratification from him by the appellant. Abdul Razzaq Khan Inspector P.W.3 and Safdar Ali Malik Magistrate P.W.4 were produced to prove the recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant. They supported the prosecution case. The rest of the evidence i:, almost of formal nature.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr. P. C., the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances including the recovery of tainted currency notes from his possession. His plea was that he was falsely implicated at the instance of one Shabbir. In defence he produced Maqbool Elahi D.W.1 who stated that he had prepared list Exh. D.A. of the Contractors enrolled in the Highways office from the year 1981. The witness further stated that no application form for enlistment as Highways contractor has been prescribed and that the printed forms are not supplied by the Department.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts; that the prosecution witnesses are not reliable; that the appellant was falsely implicated in the case and that there is reasonable possibility that the explanation given by the appellant just after the occurrence might but true. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has, however, 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 Magistrate had recovered the tainted currency notes from the physical possession of the appellant; that the complainant has stated that the appellant had not only demanded A but also accepted the tainted notes as illegal gratification; that immediately after the occurrence when the facts were fresh in the mind of the appellant, he admitted the receipt of the currency notes as price of the printed forms; that he did not stick to this statement at the time of trial; that the statement made by him just after the occurrence being not a substantive piece of evidence could only be used to corroborate or contradict him and that the Magistrate and the Inspector are quite independent witnesses and they have successfully stood the test of cross‑examination. I do not see any legal infirmity in their statements; that the recovery of tainted currency notes give rise to the statutory presumption that the same were received by the appellant as illegal gratification and that the defence evidence is not strong enough to rebut prosecution case or its evidence. For all these reasons I am convinced that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubts.

7. For what has been stated above, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall pay the fine Rs.1,000 within 15 days, failing which the trial Court shall issue warrants for his arrest to undergo sentence in default thereof awarded by the trial Court.

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.