Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No.725 of 1985, heard on 15th February, 1986.

‑‑‑S.161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5‑‑Illegal gratification‑‑Talk between accused and complainant at the time of passing tainted money not heard by Magistrate and Investigating Officer‑ Complainant not produced by prosecution‑‑Nothing in evidence available to show that tainted money was received as illegal gratification‑‑Mere contradictory statements of accused, held, would not strengthen prosecution case, onus being always on prosecution to prove its case‑ Accused acquitted in circumstances.

Sh. Ghiasuddin for Appellant.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing: 15th February, 1986.

This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Lahore whereby he on 27‑11‑1985 convicted Inayat Ali appellant under section 161, P.P.C. and section 5 of the P.C.A. and sentenced him to six months, R.I. and a fine of Rs.2,000 in default thereof to further R.I. for 4 months.

2. The appellant was dispenser in Civil Hospital, Pasroor. The charge against him was that he demanded bribe and accepted Rs.150 as illegal gratification from Hafeez Ullah complainant. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined two witnesses. Muhammad Hussain M.I.C. and Akbar Ali Shah Inspector A.C.E., were produced to prove the recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant. They supported the prosecution case. The complainant has not been produced by the prosecution.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. He stated that the complainant had forcibly put an envelope containing the tainted currency notes in his pocket.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the prosecution has failed to prove that the tainted currency notes were received by the appellant as illegal gratification. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. I find that the Magistrate and the Inspector had not heard any talk between the appellant and the complainant at the time of passing on of the tainted currency notes to the appellant. The complainant who was the best witness of the nature of the transaction has not been produced by the prosecution and as such there is nothing in evidence to show that the tainted currency notes were received by the appellant as illegal gratification. The mere fact that the appellant had made contradictory statements inasmuch as just after the raid, he stated that the tainted currency notes were given to him as return of loan and that at trial stage, he stated that the money was forcibly put in his pocket cannot strengthen the prosecution case. An accused person cannot be convicted on account of falsity committed by him. The onus was on the prosecution to prove that the tainted currency notes were received by the appellant as illegal gratification.

For what has been said above, 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.