1977 PLP 503 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1977 PLP 503 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | -----S. 161 read with Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)‑Bribery‑ Trap‑case‑Burden of proof‑Raid organised by Anti‑Corruption establishment under supervision of area Magistrate and tainted money recovered from accused's possession‑Tainted money having been recovered from accused, onus thereafter shifted upon him to explain how, he received it‑Contention that approach of Courts below was wrong inasmuch as they discussed case from angle whether defence plea was or was not true whereas correct approach should have been if prosecution established its case, held, without force.‑ Onus on prosecution very light to establish guilt in circumstances, and remaining evidence on record sufficient to discharge such burden.‑‑Burden of proof. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 PLP 503 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 PLP 503 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the -----S. 161 read with Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)‑Bribery‑ Trap‑case‑Burden of proof‑Raid organised by Anti‑Corruption establishment under supervision of area Magistrate and tainted money recovered from accused's possession‑Tainted money having been recovered from accused, onus thereafter shifted upon him to explain how, he received it‑Contention that approach of Courts below was wrong inasmuch as they discussed case from angle whether defence plea was or was not true whereas correct approach should have been if prosecution established its case, held, without force.‑ Onus on prosecution very light to establish guilt in circumstances, and remaining evidence on record sufficient to discharge such burden.‑‑Burden of proof. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 PLP 503 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Ghulam Murtaza Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Hamid Aslam, Advocate for Petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH. J.‑By this petition the petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 2‑7‑1977, whereby his appeal in the Lahore High Court was rejected.
2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner while working as patwari in village Ransee, District Sheikhupura, in 1969 accepted illegal gratification amounting to Rs.30 from one Barkat Ali complainant for entering a mutation in the name of the latter's mother.
3. On the complainant's reporting this matter a raid was organised by Sub‑4;irc]e Officer, Anti‑Corruption Establishment, under the supervision of the Magistrate of the area. The raiding party accompanied by the complainant and Ghulam Rasool P. W. entrapped the petitioner and recovered the tainted money from his possession.
4. The petitioner was tried by the Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Lahore, who convicted him under section 161, P. P'. C. read with section 512) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced hire to undergo R. I. for six months and a fine of Rs.
100. On appeal to the Lahore High Court his conviction and sentence of fine were maintained, but the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to three months` R. I.
5. The defence taken up by the petitioner was that the sum of Rs. 30 recovered from him was received on account of the copying fees and not as illegal grati5cation. The above plea was, however, not accepted either by the trial Court or by the High Court. It was observed that this plea was not raised before the Raiding Magistrate nor was it raised when the charge was put to trim in the trial Court and, therefore, it was an after thought Moreover, the possibility of the Register purporting to contain the reports relating to the supply of copies of revenue records by the petitioner to the complainant, being a fabricated document, could not be ruled out. On the other hand, the evidence of the complainant coupled with the evidence of Ghulam Rasul, who was "an independent witness" sufficiently proved the prosecution case.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued before us that the approach of the Courts below was erroneous, inasmmuch as they bad discussed the case from the angle whether the defence plea was true or not, whereas the correct approach should have been that the prosecution has established its case. We do not find mach force in this submission. It is an admitted fact that the tainted money was recovered from the petitioner. Thereafter the onus shifted upon him to explain hour he had received it. Consequently, the Courts below were justified in closely analysing the defence plea advanced by the petitioner.
7. It was next contended that the High Court had misread the evidence while holding Ghulam Rasul to be an independent witness. He referred us to certain statements made in Court to show that Ghulam Rasul was the cousin brother of the complainant. Since the conviction was based on the evidence of the complainant coupled with that of Ghulam Rasul, who was erroneously considered to be an independent witness, it (conviction) stood vitiated.
8. It is true that Ghulam Rasul P. W. was a relation of the complainant, but we are of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case the conviction is not liable to be set aside merely on account of the above misreading of evidence. The petitioner was caught red‑banded with the tainted money and, thereafter, the onus on the prosecution was very light to establish his guilt. The remaining evidence on the record was sufficient to discharge the said burden.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner lastly argued that the prosecu tion failed to establish any link between the act of accepting the bribe and the act of entering the mutation in the relevant register, in that the entry and sanction of mutation is done by the Tehsildar and not by the patwari. This argument is without force for the reason that the initial at of entering the mutation is done by the patwari and unless that is done further action by the Tehsildar is not possible. Petition dismissed.