Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 1986, heard on 40 March, 1986.

‑‑‑S.161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)‑‑Illegal gratification‑‑Raid case‑‑Recovery of tainted money admitted‑‑Magistrate and Inspector Anti‑Corruption not hearing talk between complainant and accused at time of did‑‑Complainant only witness‑‑No corroborative evidence or circumstance available‑‑Implicit reliance on uncorroborated testimony of decoy witness, held, would not, be in accordance with safe administration of justice in criminal cases‑‑Prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that money was received as illegal gratification‑‑Appeal accepted in circumstances.

Shahid Hussain Kadri for Appellant.

Suhail Akhtar for the State.

Date of hearing: 4th March, 1998.

This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Gujranwala, whereby he on 11‑2‑1986 convicted Muhammad Saleem appellant under section 161, P.P.C., read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to 3 months RJ. and a fine of Rs.3,000 in default thereof one month's R.I.

2. The appellant was a Patwari. The charge against him was that he demanded and accepted Rs.250 as illegal gratification from Muhammad Yousaf P.W.1. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case, prosecution examined 4 witnesses. Muhammad Yousaf P.W.1 appeared to prove demand as well as acceptance of Rs.250 Its illegal gratification from him. Muhammad Asghar Inspector, A.C.E. P.W.2 and Muhammad Ejaz Mirza, Magistrate, P.W.3 were produced to prove the recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant. They supported the prosecution case. The rest of the evidence is a formal nature.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. While admitting the recovery of tainted currency notes from him, he explained that the same were given to him by the complainant for passing on to Muhammad Siddiq. In defence he produced one witness. He himself appeared as D.W.2.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution has not been able 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 find that the recovery of the tainted currency notes is not only a proved but also an admitted fact and as such the crucial question for consideration, is as to whether the tainted currency notes were received by the appellant as illegal gratification or not. So far as the nature of transaction is concerned, I find that the statement of Muhammad Yousaf complainant alone remains in the field because neither the Magistrate nor the Inspector, Anti‑Corruption had heard any talk between the complainant and the appellant at the time of raid. That being the position, I am of the view that it would not be in accordance with the safe administration of justice in criminal cases to place implicit reliance on the uncorroborated testimony of a decoy witness. Since the prosecution has not produced any corroborative evidence/ circumstance to show that the tainted currency notes were received by the appellant as illegal gratification, therefore, I am of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Money was received by the appellant as illegal gratification.

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

S.A. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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