Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 1984, heard on 30th January, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)‑‑Illegal gratification‑‑ Magistrate and Inspector independent witnesses and having no ill‑will against accused‑‑Standing test of cross‑examination successfully‑‑No material contradiction in statements of Magistrate and Inspector pointed out‑‑Magistrate saw passing of tainted currency notes and also heard talk between accused and complainant‑‑Conviction maintained.

‑‑‑S.5(2)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), 5.342‑‑Statement of accused‑‑Statutory presumption‑‑Just after raid accused stated that complainant forcibly put money in his pocket‑‑But when examined under S.342, Cr.P.C. he denied very factum of recovery of tainted notes‑‑Recovery of tained notes, held, gave rise to statutory presumption that same was received as illegal gratification‑ Accused did not rebut prosecution evidence and statutory presumption‑ Conviction maintained holding that sentence of fine of Rs.2,000 not excessive.

Sh. Nisar Qutab for Appellant.

Dil Muhammad Tarar for the State.

Date of hearing: 30th January, 1985.

This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Senior Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Punjab, Lahore whereby he on 16‑2‑1984 convicted Abdur Rehman appellant under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to a fine of Rs.2,000 in default of payment of fine, R.I. for six months.

2. The appellant was a Foot Constable. The charge against him was that he demanded and accepted Rs.400 from Waryam Khan complainant P. W.2 as illegal gratification. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case, prosecution examined four witnesses. Waryam Khan complainant P.W.2 appeared to prove demand as well as acceptance of illegal gratification from him by the appellant. Muhammad Nawaz Magistrate P.W.1 and Syed Irshad Hussain P.W.4 were produced to prove the acceptance by and recovery of the tainted currency notes from the appellant. They supported the prosecution case. Rest of the evidence is not of much importance.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied all incriminating. circumstances. In defence he did not produce any witness.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; that the conversation between the appellant and the complainant allegedly heard by the Magistrate was insignificant and that Allah Ditta for whose release the bribe money was allegedly given, has not supported the prosecution case. Conversely the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. I find that the Magistrate and the Inspector are quite independent witnesses; that they have no ill‑will against the appellant; that they have successfully stood the test of cross‑examination; that the learned counsel has failed to point out material contradictions in the statements of the Magistrate and the Inspector; that the Magistrate not only saw the appellant receiving the tainted currency notes but also heard conversation between the appellant and the complainant at the time of raid and that the) Magistrate has stated; that the appellant in his statement recorded at the time of raid stated;

Strangely enough, instead of giving any explanation of the possession of the tainted currency notes at trial stage, the appellant when examined under section 342, Cr. P. C. denied the very factum of the recovery of the tainted currency notes from him; that the recovery of the tainted currency notes from him also gives rise to the statutory presumption that the same were received by him as illegal gratification. The appellant did not care to rebut prosecution' case and the presumption arisen from the recovery of the tainted currency notes from him. For all these reasons, I am convinced that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant. The sentence awarded to him is not excessive.

7. For what has been stated above, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall deposit Rs.2,000 with the trial Court immediately within two weeks. On his failure to do so, the trial Court shall issue warrants for his arrest and detention to undergo imprisonment in default of payment of fine.

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.