1977 P Cr (PLP)

S. 161 read with Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)‑Bribe‑Conviction, propriety of‑Benefit of doubt‑Accused charged for demanding and accepting bribe to re‑fix an electricity meter, after having disconnected same wrongly‑Complainant appearing to be a professional person and in habit of getting raids conducted on public servants‑Possibility that accused accepted alleged tainted money on understanding that it was sent by defence witness as part of money advanced to him not ruled out‑Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted in circumstances.‑[Benefit of doubt]. Abdul Hayee Mansoor Ahmed for Appellant. Ibne Hassan for the State. Date of hearing: 23rd June 1977. Kajeer Dad Khan appellant, a Line Superintendent, Electricity Branch, WAPDA, in Okara Town, has filed this appeal against the order dated 20th of June, 1970, of the learned Special Judge, Multan, Camp at Sahiwal, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 161, P. P. C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentenced to two months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100 and in default of payment of fine, one month's R. I. 2. Bahawal P. W. 1, is a complainant in this case. His meter had been disconnected wrongly and the appellant demanded Rs. 30 to re‑fix the same. Annoyed by this demand he contacted Muhammad Khan P. W., Sub‑Inspector, on the 29th of June 1968. A formal F. I. R. Exh. P. A. was recorded. After sanction for raid was obtained, the complainant was produced before the Magistrate who recorded his statement as well as prepared three currency notes of Rs. 10 denomination to be given as bribe to the appellant. The raiding party consisted of the complainant, Sub Circle Officer, Magistrate, and a Foot Constable (not produced), preceded towards the rendezvous. Within view of the Magistrate and Sub‑Circle Officer the money was passed on to the appellant who put it in his pocket. However after the arrival of the Magistrate and Sub‑Circle Officer, appellant threw the money on the ground wherefrom it was taken into possession. The Magistrate recorded the statement of the appellant, which is Exh. P. B. The Magistrate Habib‑ur‑Rehman is P. W. 2, and Muhammad Khan is P. W. 4. In his statement before the Magistrate the appellant said that Mr. Hafeez, Clerk had borrowed Rs 60 from him whereas the complainant contacted him and offered the money by saying that Mr. Hafeez has sent the money and that immediately thereafter the Magistrate and Sub‑Circle Officer arrived there. This Hafeez appeared as D. W. 1 and confirmed that he had borrowed Rs. 60 from the appellant. In this examination under the ordinary course of nature. It is admitted by the parties that Criminal Original No. 17-C of 1977 against respondent No. 1, Malik Tahir Mahmood, S. H. O. Police Station, Qila Didar Singh is pending in this Court and notice was issued to him on 19-4-1977. The allegation as made in that criminal original is that respondent No. 1, Malik Tahir Mahmood, S. H. O. tried to involve Muhammad Sadiq accused in the present case, in a false case and detained him in the police station for a long time and compelled him to compromise the matter pending between him and one Abdul Waheed who is also respondent No. 2 in the criminal original. I am not in a position to observe as to whether the allegations levelled in the criminal original are correct or not. The fact however, remains that notice was issued to Malik Tahir Mahmood, S. H. O. in that petition on 19-4-1977 whereas the F. I. R. was lodged on 14-5-1977 involving Muhammad Sadiq. 3. In the circumstances discussed above Muhammad Sadiq is admitted to bail in the amount of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A/C, Gujranwala. However, it is made clear that he would not try to impair the prosecution evidence to be produced in this behalf otherwise his bail would be liable to be cancelled. 4. Since the criminal original as mentioned above is pending in this Court against the S. H. O. Malik Tahir Mahmood, Police Station, Qila A Didar Singh, District Gujranwala, filed by Muhammad Sadiq accused and notice has also been issued to him on 19-4-1977, therefore, it would not be proper for him to investigate the matter against the person at whose instance the criminal proceedings have been started in this Court. The S. P. Gujranwala will look into the matter and in the interest of justice investigation of the case may be entrusted to some other competent police officer. Order accordingly.