Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 700 of 1985, decided on 8th February,1986.

‑‑‑S. 161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)‑‑Bribery‑ Trap‑case‑‑Raiding Magistrate and Inspector of Police not overhearing talk between complainant and accused‑‑Reasonable possibility of explanation given by accused, being true, not excluded Complainant being a decoy witness, no implicit reliance on his uncorroborated statement, held, could be placed‑‑Prosecution, therefore, failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that .accused received tainted currency note as illegal gratification‑‑Conviction and sentence set aside, in circumstances.

Nisar Qutab for Appellant.

Muhammad Zafar Yasin for the State.

Date of hearing: 8th February, 1986.

This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Lahore, whereby he, on 4‑12‑1985 convicted Maqsood Ahmad appellant under section 161, P.P.C. and section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him as under:

Under section 161, P.P.C.‑3 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 in default thereof one month R.I.

Under section 5 (2) 47, P.C.A.‑‑3 years' R.I.

It was directed that the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The appellant was a clerk in the Office of Lahore Development Authority, Lahore. The charge against him was that he demanded and accepted Rs.100 as illegal gratification from Arif Hussain P.W.3. He ‑denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case prosecution examined 4 witnesses. Arif Hussain P. W.3 appeared to prove demand as well as acceptance of Rs.100 as illegal gratification from him by the appellant. Abdul Haq, Magistrate, P.W.2 and Muhammad Siddiq, Inspector A.C.E., P.W.4 were produced to prove the recovery of tainted currency note from the appellant. They supported the prosecution case. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant while admitting the recovery of the tainted currency note from him explained that the same was paid to him by the complainant towards loan which he had obtained from him earlier. In defence 4 witnesses were examined.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to prove that the tainted currency note was 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 submission 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 recovery of the tainted currency note is not only an admitted but also a proved fact and as such, the real question for determination is whether the money was received by the appellant as illegal gratification or not. Since the Magistrate and Inspector had not heard any talk between the complainant and appellant, therefore, the statement of Arif Hussain complainant alone remains in the field. He being a decoy witness it would not be in accordance with the safe administration of justice in criminal cases to place implicit reliance on his statement without independent corroboration n of the same in this behalf, which I do not see in the case in hand. In the circumstances of the case, the reasonable possibility of the explanation given by the appellant, being true, cannot be excluded. For all these reasons, I am of view that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had received the tainted currency note as illegal gratification.

7. The upshot of the above discussion is that there being no satisfactory basis to uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant he is acquitted of the charge. He shall be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in some other case.

S.G.D. 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.