1986 PLP 1150 (MLD)

This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Faisalabad/Sargodha Division, whereby he, on 4‑3‑1985 convicted Jahangir Khan appellant under section 161, Cr.P.C. and sentenced him to fire months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.10,000 in default thereof 5 months S.I.

2. The appellant was a Patwari. The charge against him was that he demanded Rs.1,500 and accepted Rs.500 as illegal gratification from Nazir Ahmad P.W.3. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case prosecution examined 3 witnesses. Nazir Ahmad p.W.3 appeared to prove the demand as well as acceptance of Rs.500 as illegal gratification from him by the appellant. Aman Ullah Inspector, A.C.E. P.W.1 and Raja Abdul Ghaffar, Magistrate, P.W. 2 appeared to prove the acceptance of the tainted currency notes and recovery thereof from the appellant. They supported the prosecution case.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. He raised the plea of false implication. He stated:‑ "The case is false. It was made to get me transferred from Chak No.563/G.B." In defence he produced two witnesses. Muhammad Nawaz D.W.1 stated that on the day of raid, he had gone to the Office of Jahangir Khan appellant. Nazir complainant came there who requested the appellant for the supply of copy of Jamabandi. The appellant told him to place the papers underneath the register lying there and promised to issue him the copy of revenue record afterwards. A few minutes later, the raid was conducted and Rs.500 were recovered from papers lying underneath the register. The witness further stated that the appellant had not even touched those papers. Bashir Ahmad D.W.2 supported Muhammad Nawaz D.W.1 and made almost similar statement.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts; that the complainant has admitted that he had placed the tainted currency notes in a folded paper and as such, the possibility of false implication of the appellant cannot be excluded and that the defence evidence has not been considered by the trial Court. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.

6. I have considered the submissions made 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. I find that the Magistrate and the Inspector, A.C.E., had not only heard the conversation between the appellant and the complainant with regard to the demand and payment of bribe but had also seen the appellant taking money from the complainant. The tainted currency notes were recovered from' the shirt of the appellant. It appears that at trial stage, the complainant had tried to oblige the appellant. The Magistrate and the Inspector are quite independent witnesses. They have success‑fully faced the test of cross‑examination. Their statements did not suffer from any infirmity such as material contradictions discrepancies. The appellant in his statement Exh. P.O., which was recorded just after the raid had stated.:‑ In view of the admission made by the appellant that not only money was paid. to him but was also recovered, from him and the statements made by the Magistrate and the Inspector that the tainted currency notes were recovered from the pocket of the appellant, the defence) evidence that, the tainted currency notes were recovered from papers lying underneath the register appears to be false. The appellant has not been able to prove that the money received by him was not illegal gratification. In the circumstances of the case, the recovery of the tainted currency notes also raises statutory presumption that the tainte currency notes were received by him as illegal gratification. For al these reasons I am convinced that the appellant has rightly been convicted and that the sentence‑ awarded to him is not excessive.

7. There being no merit, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall surrender himself before the learned trial Court 'immediately. The learned trial Judge shall also issue warrants for the arrests of the appellant. The appellant when arrested be sent to jail to serve out the sentence. H.A.K. Appeal dismissed.