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. 730 of 1985, heard on 15th February,1986.
---S. 5(2)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161--Illegal gratification- Complainant not caring to inform police before giving bribe to accused- Witnesses of acceptance of money, denying their presence at time of payment of bribe money to accused--Statements of witnesses suffering from material contradictions--Prosecution, held, had failed to prove case against accused beyond reasonable doubt--Accused acquitted by giving benefit of doubt.
Idrees Ahmad Sheikh for Appellant.
Pervaiz Alamgir for the State.
Date of hearing: 15th February, 1986.
This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore Camp at Sialkot whereby he on 9-12-1985 convicted Altaf Hussain appellant under section 161, P.P.C. and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.10,000 in default thereof six months' R.I. under section 161, P.P.C. and to six months' R.I. under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, with the direction that the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
2. The appellant was a Patwari. The charge against him was that he demanded Rs.5,000 from Ghulam Rasool P.1, but received Rs.4,000 from him as illegal gratification for entering mutation in favour of Faqir Muhammad P.W. and delivering possession of the property to him. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case prosecution produced six witnesses. Faqir Muhammad P.W.1, Ghulam Rasool P.W.2 and Wali Muhammad P.W.4 have stated that the appellant had received Rs.4,000 as illegal gratification from Faqir Muhammad P.W.1. Muhammad Siddique Section Officer P.W.3 had held enquiry in the application made by the complainant and had submitted report Exh.P.W.3/2, wherein he had found the allegations against the appellant correct. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied all incriminating circumstances. He appeared as witness in disproof of charge against him and denied the allegations against him. He tendered copy of judgment in his defence.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial Court has convicted the accused on the strength of inferences and conjectures. 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 find that it was not a raid case. The complainant party did not care to inform the Anti-Corruption Establishment before giving bribe to the appellant. Faqir Muhammad stated that the money was paid by him to the appellant in the presence of Ghulam Rasool and Wali Muhammad P.Ws. Ghulam Rasool P.W.2 has stated in the cross-examination that the money was not paid to the appellant in his presence and that Wali Muhammad P.W. had also come on the spot after the payment of the money. He is the maternal-uncle of Faqir Muhammad P.W.1. I find that the statement of the prosecution witnesses suffer from material contradictions. For all these reasons, I am of the view that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellant 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./769/L Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer