Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 1985, decided on, 6th October, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)‑‑Bribery‑ Trap‑case‑‑ Evidence, appreciation of‑‑Accused caught red‑handed and bribe money of Rs.500 as well warrant of arrest issued against complainant and his co‑accused in n gambling case, recovered from him‑‑Complainant, Investigating Officer and a D.S.P. (Anti‑‑Corruption) who acted as Mashir, fully supporting factum of acceptance and recovery of tainted currency notes from accused‑‑Defence version, not inspiring confidence‑‑Conviction and sentence maintained, in circumstances.

S. Azizul Hassan for Appellant.

Khan Sanaullah Khan for the State.

Dates of hearing: 31st August and 2^nd September, 1986.

Appellant Taskeen Ahmad is a Police Constable. He was convicted by the Special Judge Anti‑Corruption (Provincial) Karachi, of an offence punishable under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and also pay fine Rs.2,000 or suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month more in default, by judgment, dated 17‑4‑1985, in Special Case No. 48 of 1983. He has preferred this appeal against his conviction and the sentence awarded on him.

Prosecution case, briefly stated, is that the appellant was discharging functions of a Court Munshi in the Court of Additional City Magistrate V, Karachi West, in July, 1983. One Muhammad Subhan, who was a peon in the Karachi Municipal Corporation, was apprehended by C.I.A Police alongwith two other persons by names Qamar and Shoukat, in a gambling case on 16‑6‑1983. They were directed to appear in the Court of Additional City Magistrate, C.I.A. Karachi on 19‑7‑1983. They went to the Court on that day. The complainant Muhammad Subhan came across the appellant there. The appellant told him that each accused would be fined Rs.500 and inquired from him if that much money was available with him. The complainant did not have the money with him and he went away. The case was adjourned to 1‑8‑1983. The complainant contacted the appellant on 30‑7‑1983 to know if the amount of fine could be reduced but the appellant told him that it would not be reduced as Rs.100 would be paid t0KVardS the fine and he would get the receipt for that much amount, and the remaining amount would be shared by him with others. The complainant went away and made report to Anti‑Corruption Officers. Altaf Ahmad Inspector. Anti‑Corruption, recorded complainant's report at 2‑13 p.m. and directed him to report at the Anti‑Corruption Office on the next day. Altaf Ahmad Inspector arranged a trap on the next day via. 1‑8‑1983. He called two Mashirs Hafizullah and Jamil Ahmad and associated a Deputy Superintendent of Anti‑Corruption Police by name Shaikh Ahmad. The tainted money comprising five one hundred rupees currency notes was delivered to the complainant Muhammad Subhan for delivering it to the appellant. The trap party went to the City Court building and found the appellant at the Court of the Additional City Magistrate. C.I.A. The complainant Muhammad Subhan talked to the appellant who took the bribe money from him at the staircase. 'Taking of the money by the appellant was witnessed by the two Mashirs and the Inspector Anti‑Corruption, Altaf Hussain, and also by the D.S.P. Shaikh Ahmad. Inspector, Anti Corruption, caught the appellant red‑handed and recovered the bribe money and extra cash 85.400 from his shirt's pocket and also recovered from his person warrants of arrest in the names of the complainant and the other two persons involved in the same crime. Mr. Shaikh Ahmad. D.S.P. Anti‑Corruption, prepared the raid report. After completing investigation, the Inspector, Anti‑Corruption, Altaf Hussain, obtained sanction for prosecution of the appellant. Ultimately, the appellant was sent up in the Court of Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption (Provincial) Karachi.

The appellant was tried on the charge of the offence punishable under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) Act II of 1947. Prosecution examined complainant Muhammad Subhan (P.W.1), Masheer Hafizullah (P.W.2), co‑Masheer Jameel Ahmad (P.W.3), Shaikh Ahmad D.S.P. Anti‑Corruption (P.W.4) and the Investigating Officer Altaf Hussain Inspector, Anti‑Corruption (P.W.5).

The appellant made denial of the allegations that he had demanded and/or accepted the bribe money Rs.500. He categorically denied that the bribe money of Rs.500 and extra cash Rs.400 were recovered from his person. As regards the securing of warrants from him, he stated that they were delivered to him by Muhammad Raees Police Constable for submitting them to the Court. He examined two witnesses Muhammad Adalat and Muhammad Raees in his defence.

The learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption (Provincial) Karachi held the appellant guilty, by judgment, dated 17‑4‑1985, of having demanded and accepted Rs.500 as bribe from the complainant Muhammad Subhan for getting him let off in the criminal case on payment of fine arid thereby committed the offence punishable under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1941 and convicted him thereof and awarded on him the aforesaid sentence.

The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the appellant was made victim of false implication. He has contended that the appellant was not in a position to have rendered him any assistance in finding escape from the case registered against him and challaned in the Court of Additional City Magistrate. According to him, the evidence adduced by the prosecution has not brought home charge against the appellant He has made pertinent reference to the evidence of Masheer Hafeezullah, who has stated that the bribe money Rs.500 was passed on to the appellant by the complainant Muhammad Subhan's son Sabir Ali and that the said money and the extra money were recovered from the hands of the appellant, whereas the evidence of the complainant Muhammad Subhan another Masheer Jameel Ahmad, Shaikh Ahmad D.S.P Anti‑Corruption, and Altaf Hussain, Inspector Anti‑Corruption, is that the bribe money was given to the appellant by the complainant Muhammad Subhan and he had kept it in pocket of his shirt and it was recovered from his shirt's pocket alongwith extra money Rs.400. He has advanced the argument that the evidence of Masheer Hafeezullah has thus shaken the prosecution case. The learned counsel has also mentioned that there is inconsistency in the evidence of witnesses regarding the place where they had parked their vehicle and also regarding the place where the witnesses had taken positions for trapping the appellant. As regard the occurring of the warrants, he has argued that they were entrusted to him by Muhammad Raees Police Constable for returning them to the Court and he has been supported by Muhammad Raees examined in defence. The learned counsel has also advanced the argument that the statement of the appellant was not recorded in accordance with the provisions of section 340(2), Cr.P.C.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has argued that all the witnesses have implicated the appellant that he was caught red‑handed in taking bribe of Rs.500 from the complainant. He has submitted that the appellant had demanded illegal gratification from the complainant for getting him favour done in a criminal case and that fact gets support from the fact that he was having with him the warrants of the arrest of the complainant Muhammad Subhan and others involved in the gambling case

The accusation against the appellant is that he had demanded from complainant Rs.500 for getting him relieved of the gambling case pending against him in the Court of Additional City Magistrate. Such report was made by the complainant to the Anti‑Corruption personnel. The trap was organised by the Anti‑Corruption Police under the supervision of a D.S.P. Anti‑Corruption and the appellant was caught red‑handed on his taking the tainted money from the complainant Muhammad Subhan in front of the Court room of the Additional City Magistrate where the case was pending. There is evidence to this effect of the complainant Muhammad Subhan, Masheer Muhammad Jameel, the D.S.P. Anti‑Corruption, Shaikh Ahmad, and the Inspector, Anti‑Corruption, Altaf Hussain. Of course, Hafeezullah Masheer has given different version of passing on of the tainted money to the appellant and its securing from him, although his evidence also is that tainted money was paid to the appellant and it was recovered from him. There is overwhelming evidence of complainant Muhammad Subhan. Masheer Jameel Ahmad, D.S.P., Shaikh Ahmad and Inspector Altaf Hussain that the appellant had taken bribe money from the complainant Muhammad Subhan. Hafeezullah Masheer seems to have introduced the different version with obvious purpose of making prosecution case doubtful. It is admitted fact that the appellant was carrying with him the warrant for arrest of the appellant and the co‑accused and that fact bears out that he could put pressure on the complainant and for knocking out money from him on the representation that he would get them favour done. The contradictions in the evidence of the witness made mention of by the learned counsel for the appellant are of insignificant nature. The defence evidence does not inspire confidence. There does not seem any illegality in recording of the statement of the appellant under section 340, Cr.P.C. The learned trial Judge has made proper appraisement of the evidence in holding that the appellant demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.500 on the representation that he would get him let off in the case on payment of nominal fine. The sentence awarded on him does not seem to be beyond proportion of the nature of offence committed by him.

For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant should surrender to his bail bond forthwith and serve out the remaining portion of the sentence.

S.G.D. 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.