Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No.73 of 1974, decided on 17th November, 1985.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of Lahore High Court, dated 11‑2‑1974 in Criminal Appeal 342 of 1973).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)‑‑Benefit of doubt‑‑Leave to appeal granted on ground that two Courts below had ignored cardinal principle of safe administration of criminal justice that benefit of all doubts arising on record had to be given to accused.‑‑[Benefit of doubt].

‑‑‑S. 161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of.1947), S.5(2)‑‑Benefit of doubt‑‑Principal witness in case conceding to assertions of defence in cross‑examination‑‑Plea raised that Courts below were not right in placing reliance on statement made by him in examination‑in‑chief as witness stood discredited by contradictory statements made by him‑ Prosecution case supported by five witnesses‑‑Facts not creating any doubt regarding guilt of accused‑‑Complainant making submissions favourable to accused found to have been rightly rejected by Courts below‑‑Conviction upheld but in view of delayed disposal of appeal, sentence reduced to already undergone.

‑‑‑S. 161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5 (2)‑‑Reduction in sentence‑‑Delay in final disposal of appeal‑‑Appellant convicted and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment‑‑Appeal finally disposed of after lapse of more than 12 years‑‑Sentence reduced to one already undergone.‑‑[Sentence].

Talib Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.

Nusratullah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for A.‑G. (Punjab) and Ejaz Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.

Date of hearing: 17th November, 1985.

‑In this case leave was granted by this Court, vide order, dated 18‑6‑1974 on the ground that the two courts below had ignored the cardinal principle of the safe administration of criminal justice namely that the benefit of all the doubts arising on the record has to be given to the accused. Muhammad Anwar the principal witness in the case having conceded the assertions of the defence in cross‑examination, the Courts below were not right in placing reliance on the statements made by him in examination‑in‑chief as the witness stood discredited by the contradictory statements made by him.

2. The accused /appellant was tried under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 by the learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Lahore who convicted and sentenced him to one year's R.I., vide, judgment dated 28‑5‑1973. Appeal was also dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court vide the impugned order, dated 11‑2‑1974.

3. According to the prosecution case the accused /appellant was a Consolidation Patwari in Halqa Maal, Tehsil Chuhang. Muhammad Anwar P.W.4, resident of village Maal was the attorney of Mst. Bhurian and was pursuing her application in the Court of the A.D.C.(R). Lahore in consolidation proceedings in progress in 1972. Certain records were required to be produced in the Court in connection with these proceedings. The accused/ appellant, in order to get something from the applicant, protracted the proceedings by not producing the requisite record in the Court. Muhammad Anwar, therefore, approached Ch. Muhammad Khan, Inspector, Anti‑Corruption Establishment and informed him about the demand of the accused /appellant Muhammad Anwar was taken to a Magistrate where his statement was recorded. Muhammad Anwar produced two currency notes each of Rs.100 denomination which were signed by the Magistrate and returned to the complainant Muhammad Anwar. The police and the Magistrate accompanied the complainant to Gol Bagh where the accused /appellant turned up at about 1 or 1‑30 p.m. Muhammad Anwar passed on the tainted money to the accused/ appellant who put the money in his pocket. Thereupon the Magistrate and the police appeared. After disclosing his identity, the Magistrate called upon the accused /appellant to surrender the currency notes which he had just put in his pocket. It is stated that the accused /appellant threw the two currency notes on the ground which were picked up by the Inspector A.C.E. Statement of the accused /appellant was recorded but he gave no satisfactory explanation except that he had been falsely implicated due to enmity. The prosecution case was supported by as many as five witnesses.

4. In cross‑examination, however, the complainant Muhammad Anwar made submissions favourable to the accused /appellant but the two Courts below have rightly rejected the same and accepted the statement of Sardar Ilahi Baksh Drishak, Assistant Commissioner, Ahmadpur East (P.W.3). He had supervised the raid and had seen the accused /appellant pocketing the tainted money and he had arrested the accused. He stated that on seeing him and the police the accused /appellant put his hand in his pocket and threw the currency notes on the ground; he directed the Inspector A.C.E. Muhammad Khan to pick up the currency notes. On comparison he found the currency notes, so picked from the ground, to be the same which were earlier given to the complainant for passing the same to the accused /appellant. No plausible explanation was offered by the accused /appellant when examined by the A.C.

However, the accused /appellant concocted a story that the complainant had grievance against him on account of one Abdul Majid's suspension from Lambardari. Muhammad Anwar P. W.4 did not recall that the accused /appellant had appeared as a witness in the enquiry against Abdul Majid. He however, admitted that his cousin Muhammad Siadiq had sent a message to him through the accused /appellant for sending money to his parents and that the accused /appellant had told him that he should give the money to him for sending to the village of the witness. But these facts do not create any doubt regarding the guilt of the accused /appellant.

5. We find that conviction was recorded on 28‑5‑1973 and leave was granted by this Court on 18‑6‑1974. The accused/appellant was also allowed bail. The appeal has come up before us now in November, 1985. In the circumstances we modify the sentence of one year's R.I. to sentence already undergone. With this modification the appeal is dismissed His bail bonds stand discharged.

M. I. 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.