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. 1288 of 1976, heard on 4th July, 1984.
‑‑‑--S. 161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)‑‑Illegal gratification‑‑Receipt of tainted money admitted by accused but raiding Magistrate and Circle Officer not hearing talk between accused and complainant which preceded passing of tainted money, to know whether or not it was given as illegal gratification‑‑Only uncorroborated statement of complainant remaining in field upon which no reliance could be placed in circumstances of case‑‑Reasonable possibility that statement of accused, that it was his own money which was returned to him by complainant, was true, not ruled out‑‑Prosecution failing to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt‑‑Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted.
M.A. Farani for Appellant.
S. Zulfiqar Haider for the State.
Date of hearing: 4‑th July, 1984.
This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, whereby he on 28‑12‑1976 convicted Riasat Ali appellant under section 16, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to 1 years' R. I.
2. The appellant was working as Patwari in the year, 1975. The charge against him was that he demanded Rs.250 and subsequently accepted Rs.90 on the day of raid from Abdul Karim P.W.2 as illegal gratification for supplying him copy of report of daily diary. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case prosecution examined three witnesses. Abdul Karim complainant, P.W.2 appeared to prove demand and passing on of the tainted notes to the appellant as bribe. Rai Muhammad Amin, Magistrate, P.W.1 and Malik Ashiq, P.W.3 were produced to prove the recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant. They supported the prosecution case.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant while admitting the receipt of tainted currency notes stated that the Sane were not received by him as bribe but in fact it was his own money which was returned to him by Abdul Karim P.W. which he had given to him for the purchase of Ghee. In defence he produced four witnesses.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the tainted currency notes were given to the appellant as bribe for the supply of copy of daily report as alleged by the prosecution.
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 find that the receipt of tainted currency notes by the appellant from the complainant having been admitted, they, material and important question for determination is as to whether the' same were paid as bribe or not. Since the Magistrate and the Circle Officer had not heard the talk between the appellant and the complainant which preceded the passing on of the tainted money, therefore, uncorroborated statement of Abdul Karim complainant remains in field upon which, in the circumstances of the case, I am not prepared to place implicit reliance. In these circumstances, the reasonable possibility that the statement of the appellant might be true cannot be excluded. For all these reasons, I am convinced that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the appellant had received tainted currency notes as bribe.
7. For what has been stated above, giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail. He stands discharged of bail bonds.
M.Y.H. Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer