1983 P Cr (PLP)

Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is, that appellant Shabazdino was posted as Excise and Taxation Clerk in Kandhkot. On 11‑3‑1973 he demanded Rs. 30 as illegal gratification from complainant Qaimdin, as a motive or reward, for remitting the tax on his house in his personal occupation. Complainant Qaidin reported the matter to Anti‑Corruption Police Jacobabad and therefore F. I. R. was registered. On 13‑5‑1973, trap was organised and complainant paid Rs. 30 to appellant while he was sitting in his office and the said amount was recovered from the pocket of his shirt by C. O. Anti‑Corruption in presence of Mr. Allah Rakhio Head Munshi and II Class Magistrate and Haji Mohammad Ismail Mashir. Appellant was arrested. After usual investigation appellant was sent up before the Court. Appellant has denied the allegation in his statement. He had stated, that he has got a cabin which was on rent with Jamaluddin, who is brother of complainant. Jamaluddin used to pay him rent some times through Qaimdin and some times by himself. On 13‑5‑73 Qaimdin had paid him Rs. 30 as rent of the Cabin. He had not demanded illegal gratification and nor accepted the same from him. Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. He examined Jamaluddin and Mohammad Hassain in his defence. The learned Advocate for the appellant in sport of the above appeal submitted as under: (a) That as far as alleged demand for illegal gratification is concerned, the prosecution case solely rests upon the statement of P. W. 1 Qaimdin (complainant) and in view of the law laid down by superior Courts, his statement requires independent corroboration, which is not at all available in the present case and consequently no reliance can be placed on his sole statement. In support of this contention, the learned Advocate for the appellant relied upon cases reported in P L D 1971 Kar. 78, P L D 1973. Kar. 659 and P L D 1962 S C 489. (b) That recovery of Rs. 30, the alleged tainted money from the possession of the appellant is not disputed by the appellant and consequently the statements of P. Ws. 3, 4 and 5 need no comments, except that none of these witnesses, admittedly heard talks between the complainant and the appellant, before passing of the said money and as such the statement of the appellant under section 342, Cr. P. C. in. respect of acceptance of the said amount by him, cannot be over looked, in the face of the statement of D. W. 1 Jamaluddin who is real brother of the complainant and D. W. 2 and consequently the defence version prima facie stands proved by the statement of D. W.

1. However, the appellant by statement of D. W. 1, read with his own statement under section

342. Cr. P. C. has succeeded in creating doubt regarding the prosecution version in this connection and as such the said benefit of doubt must go to the appellant. In view of the above submissions the learned Advocate for the appellant submitted, that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. The learned Advocate appearing for the State at the outset submitted, that he was not supporting the impugned judgment in view of the above submissions made by the learned Advocate for the appellant, specially as the statement of the appellant under section 341, Cr. P. C. has been full corroborated by the statement of D. W. I Jamaluddin, the real brother of the complainant and as such appellant has created a reasonable doubt in the prosecution, version regarding acceptance of Rs. 30 by the appellant in addition to this the learned Advocate for the State submitted, that statement of P. W. I in respect of the alleged demand of illegal gratification is not at all supported by any independent evidence and as such it would be unsafe to rely on such uncorroborated statement. In view of the cases reported in 1973 P Cr., L J 984, 1975 P Cr. L J 273 and 1975 P Cr. L J 1286. I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and have gone through the R &. P of the learned trial Court as well as impugned judgment and the cases cited by the learned Advocate for the appellant. The appellant has not denied acceptance of Rs. 30 from the complainant and since D. Ws. 3, 4 and 5 did not bear the conversation between they complainant and appellant at the time of the passing of money and as such appellant's statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. in respect of acceptance of the said amount can not be ignored, in view of the statement of D. W. 1 Jamaluddin, the, real brother of the complainant Qaimdin. The prosecution A for purposes of alleged demand made by the appellant in respect of illegal gratification solely relies on the statement of P. W. 1 Qaimdin the complainant and as such in view of the cases cited by the learn Advocate for the State, it would be unsafe to rely on such uncorroborated statement of the complainant in this connection, in view of the facts of the present case. Therefore in my opinion prosecution has failed to establish its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. In view of my above conclusions, I allow the above appeal and set as ad conviction of the appellant and sentences awarded to him under the impugned judgment and acquit him by giving him benefit of doubt and discharge the bail bond executed by the appellant in the above appeal. Appeal accepted.