Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 1983/BWP, decided on 17th March, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)‑‑Illegal gratification‑‑No evidence available to show accused as Qaumi Razakars‑ One witness describing them as Police constables‑‑Witnesses contradicting each other as to paying of money to accused‑‑Complainant not naming accused in her application as having received illegal gratification‑ Prosecution, held, had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt in circumstances.

S.M. Aslam Khan for Appellants.

Sheikh Abdul Hamid for the State.

Date of hearing: 17th March, 1985.

This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Bahawalpur Camp Rahimyar Khan, whereby he, on 7‑2‑1983 while acquitting Muhammad Munir co‑accused convicted Hazoor Bakhsh and Ghulam Mustafa appellants under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced them to four months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.200 on each count in default thereof one month R.I. on each count with the direction that the sentences would run concurrently.

2. Muhammad Munir acquitted co‑accused was a Foot Constable whereas Hazoor Bakhsh and Ghulam Mustafa allegedly were Qaumi Razakars. The charge against them was that they visited the house of Mat. Amna Bibi, P.W. 1 in connection with her house breaking and accepted Rs.20 as illegal gratification from her through Abdul Ghaffar P.W. for helping in the theft case and later on received Rs.60 from her through Muhammad Sharif P.W. 3 for the same purpose. They denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case prosecution examined six witnesses. Met. Aamna Bibi P.W.1 appeared to prove demand as well as acceptance of illegal gratification from her by the appellants and Muhammad Munir co‑accused. Abdul Ghaffar P.W. 2 did not support prosecution case. Muhammad Sharif P.W. 3 stated that in his presence Hazoor Bakhsh and Ghulam Mustafa had come to the house of Mst. Aamna Bibi and demanded illegal gratification. Mst. Aamna Bibi had however, paid Rs.50 for helping her in the theft case. Mr. Kausar Abbas, Sub‑Circle Officer, Anti Corruption, Rahimyar Khan investigated the case and recorded the statements of the witnesses. The rest of the evidence is more or less of formal nature.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellants denied all incriminating circumstances. In defence no witness was produced.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Mst. Aamna Bibi is not a reliable witness that the appellants were not Qaumi Razakars and that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 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 find that Muhammad Munir Foot Constable has already been acquitted by the trial Court; that there is no evidence to the effect that the appellants were Qaumi Razakars; that according to P.W. 1 the appellants were Police Constables, that Mst. Aamna Bibi has stated that before the payment of Rs.60 as illegal gratification, Ghulam Mustafa appellant had left her house and was not present when Rs.60 were paid to Hazoor Bakhsh appellant; that Muhammad Sharif P.W. 3 stated that Rs.60 were paid to both the appellants; that in application Exh. P.W.1/A she had stated that two constables had received Rs.60 from her as illegal gratification and that the names of the two appellants were not mentioned by her in that application. For all these reasons, I am of the view that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

7. For what has been stated above, the appeal is accepted and the appellants are 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.