Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 1986, decided on 15th February, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 5(2)‑‑Illegal gratification‑‑Raid case‑‑Tainted money not recovered from accused‑‑Tainted currency notes allegedly recovered from witness, not involving accused‑‑Magistrate and Police Inspector had neither seen passing of money to accused nor heard any talk between complainant and accused‑‑Prosecution, held, had not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt in circumstances.
Mian Muhammad Javaid Akhtar for Appellant.
Ch. Zafar Yasin for the State.
Date of hearing: 15th February, 1986.
This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Sargodha and Faisalabad Divisions with Headquarters at Sargodha, whereby he on 20‑1‑1986 convicted Muhammad Iqbal appellant under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs.5,000 in default thereof to further S.I. for 2‑1/2 months.
2. The appellant was Food Inspector. The charge against him was that he demanded and accepted Rs.500 as illegal gratification from Ghulam Mustafa P.W.2. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove, its case, prosecution examined five witnesses, Ghulam Mustafa P. W.2 and Hameed Ullah P.W.3 appeared to prove the demand as well as acceptance of Rs.500 as illegal gratification by the appellant. Mehboob Nawaz P.W.4, Mirza Muhammad Maqbool Illahi M.I.C. P.W.1 and Said Ameer S.C.O./A.C.E. P.W. 5 have been produced to prove the recovery of the tainted currency notes. The Magistrate and the Inspector stated that the tainted currency notes were recovered from Mehboob Nawaz P.W.4. Mehboob Nawaz P.W. however, resiled. He did not support the prosecution version.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. In defence he tendered Exh.D.A. the departmental enquiry report wherein he was exonerated of these allegations.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant; that the tainted currency notes were not recovered from the physical possession of the appellant; that the tainted currency notes were recovered from Mehboob Nawaz P.W.4 who has not supported the prosecution case. 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 the tainted currency notes were not recovered from the physical possession of the appellant; that the tainted currency notes were allegedly recovered from Mehboob Nawaz P.W.4 and that Mehboob Nawaz P.W.4 has not involved the appellant. The Magistrate and the Inspector had neither seen the passing on of the money nor did they hear any talk between the complainant and the appellant at the time of raid. For all these reasons, I am of the view that prosecution had not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
7. For what has been said 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