1989 P Cr (PLP)

The appellant was tried for an offence 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, Multan, vide judgment dated 30‑11‑1975, who found the appellant guilty of the offence and sentence him to undergo R.I. for three months with a fine of Rs.400, in default of payment to undergo R.I. for one week more.

2. The brief facts of the case are that one Amir Din alias Bir Din was sentenced to death in a murder case and was lodged in the Central Jail, Sahiwal. At that time, the appellant was working as a Warder in the Jail. Noor Ahmad co- accused, who separately filed Criminal Appeal No. 1269 of 1976, and the present appellant are said to have demanded a sum of Rs.6,000 from Abdul Aziz, brother of the condemned prisoner, who as illegal gratification to save the prisoner from the death sentence. This fact came to light through the will of Amir Din the condemned prisoner, who was ultimately executed on 1‑2‑1969. He mentioned in portion `A' to `A' of the will that after rejection of his appeal by the Supreme Court, Mehtab Khan, Warder, the appellant and Noor Ahmad, co‑accused, received Rs.5,500 from his brother with a view to saving him from the gallows. On the said statement, above‑referred case was registered against the appellant and his co‑accused Noor Ahmad. The appellant is said to have received only Rs.500 while the rest of the amount was received by Noor Ahmad, co‑accused. The prosecution story is supported by the statements of P.W.1 Abdul Aziz, brother of Amir Din, who had paid the amount to the appellant, P.W.2 Abdullah, brother- in‑law of the' deceased, and P.W.7 Mukhtar Ahmad son of the deceased.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has only prayed for reduction of the sentence to the one already undergone. The learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the said prayer on the ground that the case against the appellant is fully proved.

4. The appellant was convicted by the trial Court on 30‑11‑1976 and was allowed bail on 16‑12‑1976. The appellant is also said to have suffered an imprisonment for about one month during his trial. The case has come up for hearing after more than 12 years and it is not desirable to send the appellant back to the jail after the lapse of such a long time. I, therefore, allow benefit of section 382‑B of the Cr.P.C. to the appellant and reduce his sentence to the one already undergone. With this modification in the sentence, the appeal is dismissed. SA./M‑1536/L Sentence reduced.