Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 467 of 1985, decided on 4th December,1985.

‑‑‑S. 161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (I1 of 1947), S 5(2)‑‑illegal gratification‑‑Conviction‑‑Complainant proving demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by accused‑‑Magistrate and Inspector having seen, accused receiving tainted money‑‑No legal infirmity in statements of witnesses‑‑Defence evidence not strong enough to rebut prosecution case‑‑Magistrate and Inspector, being quite independent witnesses having no ill‑will against accused, conviction upheld in circumstances.

Rab Nawaz Khan Niazi for Appellant.

Date of hearing: 4th December, 1985.

This Criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, Lahore, whereby, he on 23‑‑7‑1985 convicted Manzoor Khan appellant under section 161, P.P.C. and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to 6 months' R.I. and a the of Rs.1,000 in default thereof one month R.I.

2. The appellant was working as Dresser in Mayo Hospital, Lahore. The charge against him was that he accepted Rs.30 as illegal gratification from the complainant. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case prosecution produced 3 witnesses. The complainant Muhammad Younas appeared as P.W.2. He stated that the appellant had accepted Rs.30 as illegal gratification from him. Faiz Ahmad, M.I.C., P.W.1 and Muhammad Abdul Samad, Inspector A.C.E., P.W.3 supported the acceptance by and recovery of the tainted currency notes from the appellant.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. He raised the plea of false implication at the instance of one Riaz. In defence, he produced 3 witnesses. D.W.1 Inayat Ali, stated that the appellant is a gentleman and that he was not present at the time of raid. D.W.2 Nawab Masih stated that the appellant was a gentleman. Kala Masih D. W.3 stated that the appellant was involved by a person due to grudge.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; that the prosecution witnesses are not reliable and that the appellant was, in fact, involved falsely at the instance of one Riaz. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. I find the Magistrate and the Inspector, who are quite independent witnesses having no ill‑will against the appellant had seen the appellant receiving tainted currency notes from the complainant. The complainant has stated that the appellant had not only demanded but also accepted the tainted currency notes from him as illegal gratification. The learned counsel has failed to point out any legal infirmity in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The defence evidence is not strong enough to rebut the prosecution case or its evidence. For all these reasons, 'I am convinced that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant.

7. This brings me to the question of sentence. In the circumstances that the petitioner has suffered agony of trial and has lost the job, I feel inclined to set aside the sentence of imprisonment of 6 months' R.I. The fine of Rs.1,000 or sentence in default thereof is, however, maintained. The appellant shall deposit fine with the trial Court within 7 days, failing which the trial Court shall issue warrants for his arrest and to serve out the sentence in default of payment of fine.

S.A. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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