1985 PLP 807 (MLD)

This criminal appeal arises. from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore, whereby he on 31-3-1985 convicted Muhammad Aslam appellant under section 161, P.P.C. and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs.500 in default thereof one month's R.I. on each count, with the direction that the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The appellant was a Canal Patwari. The charge against him was that he demanded and accepted Rs.150 as illegal gratification from Muhammad Ashraf complainant P.W.1. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case, prosecution examined three witnesses. Muhammad Ashraf complainant P.W.1 appeared to prove demand as well as acceptance of Rs.150 as illegal gratification from him by the appellant. Iftikhar Ahmad Gondal Magistrate P.W.2 and Tufail Hayat Sub Inspector Anti-Corruption Establishment P.W.3 were produced to prove the recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant. They supported the prosecution case.

3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied all incriminating circumstances. While admitting the recovery of the tainted currency notes from him he explained that the same was given to him by the complainant for entertainment. In defence he produced two witnesses. Nazir Ahmad D.W.1 stated that there was a murder case of one Abdullah against Muhammad Ashraf complainant in which Nawab and Saeed the close relatives of Muhammad Aslam appellant /accused are prosecution witnesses. Talib Hussain D.W.2 stated that Nawab and Saeed the close relatives of the appellant had enmity with Muhammad Ashraf complainant and for that Ashraf has falsely involved Muhammad Aslam appellant /accused in this case.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant has falsely been involved in the case on account of the enmity of his two close relatives with the complainant; that the Magistrate and the Inspector Anti-Corruption did not hear the talk between the complainant and the appellant which preceded the passing on of the tainted currency notes to the appellant; that the complainant had voluntarily given tainted currency notes to the appellant for his entertainment and as such it was not a bribe money. Conversely the learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the trial Court.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. 1 find that the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the appellant is not only a proved but also an admitted fact. The complainant has stated that the money was accepted by the appellant as illegal gratification; that the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the appellant also give rise to the statutory presumption that the, same were received by him from the complainant as bribe. The complainant had no direct enmity with the appellant. All the three P.Ws. have successfully stood the test of cross examination. Learned counsel has failed to point out any inherent infirmity in their statements. The recovery of the tainted currency notes from him by the Magistrate has also been admitted by the appellant and that from the statement of the appellant made by him just after the raid and at trial stage it is established that money was given to him as " cs4;~b". The appellant has not given any reason for thelD complainant to give him the tainted currency notes for hr's " (.~L e_-~ " and as such there is no reason to disbelieve the complainant that theE money was received by the appellant as illegal gratification. The appellant being a government servant could not have received " ~.u, e

6. "IF without consideration and that if a Public Servant agrees to accept ~for himself any valuable thing without consideration that would tantamount to mis-conduct punishable under section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The defence evidence is not strong enough to rebut prosecution case. Had there been any enmity between the appellant with the complainant, then the latter would not have dared to approach the former and the former would not have received any " i3~' - " from him. For all these reasons I am convinced that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under section 161, P.P.C. and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The sentence awarded to him is not excessive.'

6. For what has been stated above, the appeal is dismissed. H . A . K