1985 PLP r (PCRLJ)

3. The prosecution examined 5 witnesses. The complainant Muzammal Hussain supported the prosecution case as detailed above. Abdul Hameed Tahir, Inspector Police, P.W.1 and Muhammad Tariq Magistrate P.W.2 have stated that on the information of Muzammal Hussain P.W.3, a raid was conducted and the tainted money valuing Rs.100 was recovered from the pocket of the appellant. P.W.4 Shaukat Mahmood investigated the case. Perwaiz Akhtar Shah, S. D.O. WAPDA, P. W.5 stated that the appellant was a Meter Clerk and his duty was to record the energy consumed by the consumers and to point out the defects, if any, and that he could not tamper with the meter in any case.

4. The appellant when examined under section 342, Cr.P. C. denied the incriminating circumstances. His case is that in fact the complainant had put Rs.100 in his pocket while he was checking the meter of the complainant, by a testor. He further stated that: "I was working as Meter Reader and it was my duty to check meters. The complainant avoided checking of his meter. I issued him a notice and then contacted him. He again avoided checking. I then took him along on 27‑4‑1976 for checking of the meter from his shop at Sahiwal. He made me wait for half an hour. I was unhappy over it and came back without checking the meter. On the following day the complainant called me when I was doing shopping in the Bazar and told me that his meter should be checked. He again made me sit at his shop. I, then, went to the house of the complainant and found lower seals of his meter missing and as such the reading of the consumption was doubtful. I was checking the meter when he put money in my pocket from behind. The complainant is thick with the police." He produced Muhammad Anwar D.W.1, Abdul Ghani D.W.2, Abdul Rashid D.W.3, Muhammad Jamil D.W.4, Shah Muhammad S.D.C., D.W.5 and Muhammad Ali Meter Inspector D.W.6 in his defence and tendered copies of the notices issued to 8 consumers.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has hopelessly failed to prove that Rs.100 was given to the appellant as illegal gratification. As against this, the learned counsel for the State has defended the judgment of the trial Court.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that as far the demand of illegal gratification, the learned trial Court has in para. No.22 of its judgment found that the same has not been proved by the prosecution. As for the acceptance of the tainted currency as a bribe money, I find that the learned Special Judge was not prepared to act upon the statement of the decoy witnesses and has based the conviction on what was overheard by the Magistrate and the Sub‑Inspector of the police. The statements made by the Magistrate and the Inspector in this behalf are as follows: ‑ P.W.1 Abdul Hameed Tahir, Inspector Police. "After some time the sound came which said, that he had done his job and his reward be given. The sound also directed that nobody should be told that the meter has been set right by him. The complainant then gave Rs.100 saying that it was the money which be had demanded for setting the meter right." P.W.2 Muhammad Tariq Magistrate Ist Class. "Then I heard the person who corrected the meter saying "I have corrected your meter". Then the complainant said that you can have your reward. Thereupon the accused said that he (complainant) should not tell anyone that his meter was corrected after taking money." To my mind, these statements accepted at its face value, do not prove that the money was passed on as illegal gratification and not as compensation for the labour "setting the meter right" of the appellant. Since it is doubtful whether the money was in fact given by the complainant to the appellant as a bribe, therefore, benefit of the doubt has to be given to the appellant/accused. Resultantly, the appeal is accepted and the appellant is acquitted of the charge. The bail bond, stand discharged. M.A. K. Appeal accepted