1985 PLP r (PCRLJ)

Afzal Ahmad Qureshi for Appellant. Zulfiqar Haider for the State. Dates of hearing: 11th and 13th May, 1985. This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Sargodha whereby he on 23‑12‑1979 convicted Muhammad Sarwar appellant under section 161, P.P.C. and sentenced him to 6 months' R.I. and a fine of Its. 200, in default thereof one month R.I.

2. The appellant was Inspector in Foodgrain Department, Sargodha. The charge against him was that he demanded and accepted Rs. 50 as illegal gratification from Muhammad Shoaib P.W.1. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case prosecution examined 7 witnesses. Muhammad Shoaib P.W.1, and Abdul Majid P.W.2 appeared to prove demand as well as acceptance of Rs. 50 as illegal gratification by the appellant from the complainant. Raja Muhammad Muzaffar, Circle Officer, P.W.3 and Shaukat Javed Farooqi, Magistrate, P.W.7 were produced to prove acceptance of tainted currency notes by and recovery thereof from the appellant. The rest of the evidence is more or less of formal nature.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr. P. C., the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. He raised the plea of false implication. He did not lead evidence in defence.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts, inasmuch as, Abdul Majid P. W.2 has not supported the allegation of demand of illegal gratification by the appellant from the complainant; that the tainted currency notes were not recovered from the physical possession of the appellant and that the prosecution evidence suffers from infirmities such material discrepancies and contradictions. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the Magistrate who is an independent witness has stated that on seeing the Raiding Party the appellants ran towards sugar godown and placed the currency notes in between bags lying there and that Raja Muhammad Muzaffar Circle officer caught hold the hands of the appellant and picked out the bribe money from in between the bags and produced before him. Raja Muhammad Muzaffar P.W.3 stated that they saw that the appellant was about to place the, tainted currency notes in between the bags. He caught hold of his hands and recovered the tainted currency notes. Muhammad Shoaib P.W.1 stated that the appellant had not only demanded but also accepted Rs. 50 as illegal gratification from him. He further stated that Raiding Party had caught hold of the appellant and recovered bribe money from him. Abdul Majid P.W.2 has stated that the appellant had stretched iris hands towards bags. The Officer caught hold of his hand and recovered 5 currency notes. These witnesses are quite independent. They had no serious enmity with the appellant. Except for immaterial contradictions and minor discrepancies, I do not see any major contradiction and dishonest improvement in the statements of these witnesses. The evidence of these witnesses does not suffer from any inherent infirmity. The conduct of the appellant that he ran towards) godown on seeing Raiding Party speaks volumes. The conduct was very much relevant under section 8 of the Evidence Act. The appellant has not been able to rebut the prosecution case and its evidence. For B all these reasons, I am of the view that the submissions made by the learned counsel do not hold any water and that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant. The sentence awarded to him is not excessive.

7. For what has been stated' above, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall surrender himself before the trial Court immediately. The trial Court shall also issue warrants for his arrest and detention to serve out the remaining sentence. H. A. K. Appeal dismissed.