Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No.452 of 1985, heard on 26th March, 1986.

‑‑‑S.161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5‑‑Decoy witness‑‑Raid case‑‑Magistrate and Investigating Officer not seeing passing of tainted money to accused‑‑Talk between complainant and accused not heard by both the officials‑‑Tainted money not recovered from accused‑‑Demand of bribe by accused supported by complainant only‑‑Complainant being decoy witness, it would not be safe to place implicit reliance on his testimony‑‑Prosecution thus failed to prove case against accused beyond reasonable doubt‑‑Accused acquitted in circumstances.

Sh. Muhammad Shafi for Appellant.

S.D. Qureshi for the State.

Date of hearing: 26th March, 1986.

This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Sargodha and Faisalabad Division with Headquarters at Sargodha, whereby he on 7‑7‑1985 while acquitting Muhammad Tufail co‑accused, convicted Muhammad Hussain appellant under section 161, P.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs.10,000 in default thereof further S.I. for ten months.

2. The appellant was Sub‑Divisional Officer, Irrigation Department Bhakkar. The co‑accused Muhammad Tufail was S.D.O. The charge against them was that they demanded and accepted Rs.1,000 as illegal gratification from Muhammad Sharif complainant P.W.4. They denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case prosecution examined four witnesses. Muhammad Sharif complainant P.W.4 appeared to prove demand as well as acceptance of Rs.1,000 as illegal gratification from him by the appellant and his co‑accused. Sardar Hakam Khan Magistrate P.W.5 and Mumtaz Khan SCO/ACE P.W.1 were produced to prove the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the appellant. They supported the prosecution case. The rest of the evidence is more or less of formal nature.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr:P.C., the appellant denied all incriminating circumstances. He raised the plea of false implication. He gave evidence in disproof of the charge against him and produced Muhammad Aslam D.W.1 in his defence.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the tainted currency notes were not recovered from his possession.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the Magistrate and the Inspector had neither seen the appellant receiving bribe money from the complainant nor did they hear any talk between them at the time of the raid. The Magistrate and Inspector have stated that they had seen Muhammad Tufail acquitted accused holding the tainted currency notes who on seeing them had thrown the same on the ground. As far the demand of bribe money from the appellant, the statement of complainant alone remains in field. He being a decoy witness it may not be safe to place implicit reliance on his statement. For all these reasons, I am convinced that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

7. For what has been said above, while giving him the benefit of doubt the appellant is acquitted of the charge.

S.A.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.