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. 1306 of 1979, decided on 23rd November, 1985.
‑‑‑S. 161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947), S. 5(2)‑‑Decoy witness‑‑Passing of tainted money not seen either by Magistrate or by Inspector‑‑Statement of only decoy witness to prove passing of money‑ Uncorroborated testimony of decoy witness, held, could not be implicitly relied upon and possibility of putting tainted money in accused's pocket without his knowledge could not be excluded‑‑Appeal accepted.
Sh. Nisar Qutab for Appellant.
Qayyum Anjam for the State.
Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1985.
This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption. Multan whereby he on 28‑11‑1979 convicted Atta Mohammad 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.2,500 or in default thereof to undergo one year's R I.
2. The appellant was a Draftsman. The charge against him was that he demanded and accepted Rs.50 as illegal gratification from Javid Ashraf P.W.2. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, prosecution examined three witnesses. Javaid Ashraf P.W.2 appeared to prove demand as well as acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant from him. Muhammad Afzal Khan, Magistrate P.W.1 and Aman Ullah Khan Inspector P.W.3 were produced to prove the recovery of tainted currency notes from him. They supported the prosecution case.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied all incriminating circumstances. While admitting the recovery of tainted currency notes from him he stated that the money was in fact put in his pocket without his knowledge. In defence he produced Bashir Ahmad.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that since the Magistrate and the Inspector had not seen the money changing hands therefore, there is a reasonable possibility of the explanation given by the appellant being true. 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 neither the Magistrate nor the Inspector had seen the appellant receiving tainted currency notes from the complainant. So far as the passing of the tainted currency notes; A the statement of Javaid Ashraf complainant alone remains in field. He being a decoy witness, it would be unsafe to place implicit reliance on his uncorroborated testimony. In the circumstances of the case, the reasonable possibility that the money might have been put in his pocket without his knowledge cannot be excluded.
7. For what has been stated above, while giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charge.
S.A Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer