Find a Lawyer

3. The charge was framed to which appellant pleaded not guilty. The case proceeded and finally he was convicted.

4. In support of the case the prosecution examined Mashir Muhammad Shakeel, Muhammad Saleem, Clerk K . D. A Muhammad Usman, Additional City Magistrate, complainant Aleemuddin, Inspector Fakir Muhammad, Ishtaque Ali, Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Siddique and Abdul Majeed.

5. Complainant Aleemuddin Exh.13 has corroborated the contents of the F.I.R. as mentioned above. He has stated that appellant demanded Rs.300 as illegal gratification regarding the change of documents of plot in his favour. He went and lodged report with the Anti-Corruption Inspector which he produced as Exh.14. He took tainted money from Anti-Corruption Inspector and went to K.D.A. Office where appellant enquired if he had brought the money on which he replied in affirmative. He then took out Rs.300 and gave to appellant who kept the amount in pocket of his shirt. Thereafter P.W. Shakeel gave signal to Bars, Sahib (Magistrate) who was standing in the Verandah. Bars, Sahib came inside the room and took out the tainted money from the pocket of shirt of appellant. In the meanwhile Inspector Fakeer Muhammad and all other persons came inside the office of the accused. He has stated that his eye-sight is weak, therefore, he could not say whether accused present in Court is same person who demanded Rs.300 from him and later he had taken Rs.300. He has stated that Abdul Majeed his nephew was with him when he came to the Anti-Corruption Office. In his cross- examination he stated that at the time he went to K.D.A. Office his eye-sight was blurred and could not see clearly. Muhammad Shakeel Exh.4 is Mashir. He has stated that on 27-5-1983 he was called in the Anti-Corruption Office where complainant was produced before the Magistrate. Inspector gave Rs.300 to the complainant and such Mashirnama Exh.5 was prepared. He was taken to Korangi. They stopped a vehicle a little distance from K.D.A. Office. He alongwith Inspector, Magistrate, complainant and 2-3 other persons went inside the office. The complainant brought them to the office of appellant when Magistrate stood at the gate of the office while Inspector Fakir Muhammad sat at the side of the table of appellant. The complainant enquired from appellant about his case on which he told that he has brought the money. The complainant replied in affirmative and took Rs.300 from his pocket and gave to the appellant, who after taking money put the same in the pocket of shirt. Thereafter Inspector caught hold appellant and Magistrate was called who took out the money from the pocket of his shirt. The numbers of the notes were compared and found to be the same as given in the Mashirnama Exh.5. Such Mashirnama was prepared by the Inspector, which he signed. The Magistrate also attested the Mashirnama. In his cross-examination this witness has denied the suggestion of appellant that he told complainant that Assistant Director had not signed the challan hence he could not deposit the transfer fee in the bank. The appellant has not suggested any enmity with this witness. Muhammad Usman Exh.10 has stated that 27-5-1983 he was posted as A.C.M. Court No.3, East Karachi, when S.P. Anti-Corruption requested him to supervise the trap proceedings. He came to Anti-Corruption office where Inspector Fakir Muhammad produced the complaint alongwith copy of F.I.R. Complainant admitted the contents of the F.I.R. Thereafter Inspector gave Rs.300 as tainted money to complainant in presence of Mashirs Muhammad Shakeel and Muhammad Aslam and such Mashirnama Exh.5 was prepared which he signed. He alongwith complainant, Mashirs, Inspector and other police staff came, at K. D. A. Office, Korangi. He alongwith complainant and Mashirs went to the First floor of the building. Complainant and Mashir Muhammad Aslam went inside the office of appellant. He came and stood at the door of the room where appellant was sitting. The complainant took out Rs.300 from his pocket and passed it on to the appellant, which he kept in the front pocket of his shirt. Mashir Aslam gave signal to Inspector and other staff went inside the office of the appellant where Mashir was also standing. He told the appellant to take out Rs.300 from his pocket. How many numbers taken out by requisite. He compared the numbers of the notes. Such Mashirnama was prepared and it was signed by Mashirs and he countersigned it. The Anti-Corruption Inspector demanded file from appellant regarding transfer of plot of complainant to which appellant replied in negative. The clerk of the record was called and on enquiry he stated that he had given file to the appellant and obtained such receipt from him. The receipt was secured and Mashirnama Exh.7 was prepared. Appellant was arrested and brought to Anti-Corruption Office where he prepared raid report Exh.7. In cross-examination he has stated that he did not hear the appellant telling complainant that he could have paid Rs.5 per sqr. yard as transfer fee. Muhamamd Saleem Exh.8 was working as peon in the Office of Assistant Administrative Officer K.D.A. Korangi. He has stated that on 25-5-1983, he received requisition slip from appellant Jamil Ahmed for sending him one file regarding plot. He sent the file to the appellant and kept the slip. He made such entry in the relevant register at Sr. No.1481, dated 25-5-1983. He stated that file in the Court is same which was requisited by the appellant. He produced the file Article 'C'. Fakir Muhammad Exh.16 was Inspector Anti-Corruption Karachi. He stated that on 26-5-1986 he recorded the F.I.R. Exh.14 of the complainant. On 27-5-1983 amount of Rs.300 tainted money was given to the complainant in presence of Magistrate and such Mashirnama Exh.5 was prepared. He alongwith complainant, Magistrate and other staff went to the office of the K.D.A. Korangi, Karachi. The complainant, Magistrate and two Mashirs went inside the K.D.A. Office and the followed them. The appellant was sitting in his office. The Mashir stood at the gate of the room while he was standing near the staircase at the distance of 2-3. About 5-10 minutes Shakeel came out and gave signal. He alongwith Magistrate went inside and found appellant sitting on the chair. He disclosed his identity and asked the appellant to take out the money but he did not produce the notes. Thereafter, Magistrate took out Rs.300 from left pocket of his shirt, and compared the numbers with the Mashirnama Exh.5 and found the same. Such Mashirnama was prepared which was signed by the Mashirs. On enquiry about the file of complainant, the appellant told that it must be in the Record Room. Ishfaque, Incharge of Record Room was present but Saleem Clerk, produced slip and told that file was with the appellant. He produced the slip and such Mashirnama Exh.7 was prepared. He arrested the appellant and brought him to Anti-Corruption Office where raid report was prepared by Magistrate. He recorded further statement of complainant and statements of Mashirs Shakeel, Aslam and Saleem. On 4-6-1983 Ishfaque came to his office alongwith file which he secured and prepared the Mashirnama Exh.17. He recorded the statement of Ishtiaque and one Muhammad Sadiq. After obtaining prosecution sanction he challaned the accused on 24-9-1983. He produced sanction Exh.18. The appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Exh.19 has denied the allegation to have received Rs.300 as bribe but stated that according to law 7 days time was to be given after publication for the mutation but complainant wanted that mutuation should take place before the date of expiry of publication. Since that period had not expired, the mutuation was not to be made, therefore, complainant was annoyed. As regards the witnesses he has stated that they have set up by the Anti-Corruption Police and they are related to each other. He examined Habib Rasool Exh.21, Muhammad Aslam son of Gul Muhammad Exh.23 and Muhammad Aslam son of Kalo Khan Exh.24, in his defence.

6. Habib Rasool in his evidence has stated that in the year 1983 he had gone to the Office of K.D.A. for getting ownership of one plot changed where he met the appellant. There came one old person whose eye-sight was weak. He told the appellant to change the name of owner of one plot to which appellant replied that time limit given in the notice published in the newspaper has not expired, therefore, change cannot be made. The old man also enquired about the transfer fee to which appellant told him that he will have to pay Rs.300 at the rate of Rs.5 per sq. yard. He came back to his shop and after about 2-3 days again went to the K.D.A. Office. It was Friday but office was open. The same old man told the accused to take Rs.300 from him and deposit in the bank as transfer fee. The appellant refused to do so on the ground that it was Friday. Appellant told him to deposit the money in bank. He stated that old man was still in K.D.A. Office when he came back to his shop and later came to know that appellant was arrested by Anti-Corruption Police. Muhammad Aslam son of Gul Muhammad Exh.23 has stated that on 27-5-1983 one old man came to the appellant alongwith other person and demanded challan from appellant. The appellant told him that time limit given in the notice published in the newspaper had not expired, therefore, challan will be given on the expiry of that period. The appellant also told the old man to deposit Rs.300 in the bank. Complainant told appellant to deposit the amount on his behalf to which appellant refused thereafter, he went away. Subsequently, he heard commotion and went towards that room where appellant used to sit. The room was closed from inside. He saw the accused was arrested and taken away. He was Chokidar at the time of incident and used to work in K.D.A. Office situated at Saddar. He had stated in cross -examination that prior to this he was posted at K.D.A. Office, Korangi. D.W. Muhammad Aslam son of Kaloo Khan Exh.24 stated that in the month of May, 1983 he was working as police constable in the Anti- Corruption Establishment at Karachi. He was made Mashir in this case. He was taken to K.D.A. Office at Korangi by Inspector Fakir Muhammad. He waited at the ground floor. He has stated that appellant had not taken anything from any person in his presence. In cross-examination he has admitted to have signed the Mashirnama Exh.5 but the contents of the Mashirnama were not correct. He has stated that Mashirnama Exh.6 regarding recovery bears his signature but contents are not correct. He has admitted that he ran away from Training School, Shahdadpur and for that reason he was removed from Police service.

7. Mr. Muhammad Hayat Junejo, appearing for the appellant argued that complainant has not identified the applicant in Court, therefore, case is doubtful. He has also argued that co-Mashir Muhammad Aslam son of Kaloo Khan has been examined in defence and he has clearly stated that in his presence appellant had not received any amount nor he demanded money from complainant Aleemuddin. It is contended that evidence of defence witnesses is trustworthy. In the alternate he has prayed that lenient view be taken.

8. Mr. Khan Sanaullah Khan, appearing for the State has supported the conviction and submitted that all the prosecution witnesses have supported the case and no enmity has been shown with the witnesses.

9. Complainant Aleemuddin has fully supported the case of prosecution. He went and lodged the report and finally handed over tainted money to appellant and amount was secured from him. But in his evidence stated that his eye-sight has become very weak, therefore, he cannot see whether accused present in Court was the same person who demanded Rs.300 and later on took the amount from him. Complainant was examined on 4-12-1984 about one and half years after the registration of the case. In cross-examination he has stated that at the time he had gone to K.D.A. Office his eye-sight was perfect and he could see clearly at that time, therefore, this lacuna in the evidence cannot help the appellant. Shakeel was Mashir of recovery. The Magistrate Muhammad Usman and Anti-Corruption Inspector Fakeer Muhammad have fully supported the case and accused /appellant has not denied the arrest at the relevant time. The evidence of witnesses has been summarised in the above para. The evidence of D.Ws. Habib Rasool and Muhammad Aslam son of Gul Muhammad is not believable. Their statements are not trustworthy and cannot be considered on the simple ground that nowhere in the cross-examination it has been suggested or disclosed that they were present when complainant contacted the appellant nor it is mentioned in 342, Cr.P.C. statements. Moreover regarding of version of the defence that complainant wanted to deposit Rs.300 as fee for the mutation of his plot there is nothing on the record to show that any fee was prescribed for such transfer. Muhammad Saleem son of Gul Muhammad, is a Chowkidar in K.D.A. and he is working in Korangi office where appellant was working as Head Clerk. It is clear that this witness has remained subordinate to the appellant. Muhammad Aslam son of Kaloo Khan was police constable. He admitted to have signed the Mashirnama He has been won over after he was removed from service, his evidence in these circumstances cannot be given any weight when Magistrate, complainant, Mashir Shakeel and Investigating Officer have clearly stated that appellant was caught when he accepted Rs.300 and was arrested in the K.D.A. Office. Appellant has not proved any enmity or mala fide on the part of complainant or other witnesses. I have no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the witnesses. The prosecution in my view has proved the case and appellant has been rightly convicted. The appeal is dismissed. As regards the sentence, the learned Special Judge has already taken a lenient view and there are no circumstances for reduction in sentence. Appellant is on bail. He should be taken to custody to serve out the sentence.