1986 P Cr (PLP)

S. 161--Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), 5.(2)--Illegal gratification-- Trap-case--Solitary statement of complainant against accused in trap-case, held, could not be acted upon without corroborative evidence. Muhammad Ismail for Appellant. Dil Muhammad Tarar for the State. Date of hearing: 10th April, 1984. Through this appeal the appellant assails his conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, at Lahore on a charge under section 161, P.P.C. and under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The learned trial Judge, vide his order dated 16-10-1973 had sentenced the appellant to undergo R.I. for a term of six months. 2. In brief, the prosecution case is that the appellant, posted as Patwari, had demanded illegal gratification amounting to Rs.10 as a motive or reward for supplying the copies of the revenue record to the complainant Hafiz Muhammad Ali P.W.3. 3. The information as to the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant was lodged with the Anti-Corruption, Police, Gurjanwala, whereupon, a raiding party was formed consisting of P.W.2 Muhammad Ashraf, Magistrate, to supervise the raid, and Ch. Rehamt Ullah, Inspector Police in the Anti-Corruption Establishment and a Constable. It was alleged that the demand for the illegal gratification was made by the appellant on or about 28th of March, 1972 and on the same day the raiding party was formed. On the said day, the raiding party proceeded to the Tehsil Office and admittedly, only the complainant P.W.3, Hafiz Muhammad Ali went inside the room where the appellant was performing his duties. The alleged tainted currency amounting to Rs.10 was passed on whereupon, on a signal received by the Magistrate P.W.2 and the Inspector Police P.W.4, they entered the room and recovered the money from the appellant and thus, in those circumstances, the appellant was made to face the trial. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant, I have gone through the evidence on the record, and the scrutiny of the same reveals that the learned trial Judge had erred in recording the conviction of the appellant. It is starting to note that neither the Magistrate P.W.2 nor the Inspector Police P.W.4 heard the conversation between the complainant and the appellant, nor they saw the passing of the tainted money. There is variance in the manner and mode of recovery and deposed by the prosecution witnesses. According to the complainant, the tainted currency was lying ion the floor and was picked up by the Inspector Police. The complainant further deposed that the Magistrate had also given slaps to the appellant. On the other hand, the Magistrate P.W.2 and the Inspector Police P.W.4 deposed that the tainted currency notes were still in the hand of the appellant, and he was about to throw the same when at the instance of the Magistrate, the Inspector Police caught held of the appellant and recovery was affected from his hand. 5. In the circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to hold that the appellant had accepted illegal gratification, because, the solitary statement of the complainant in this behalf cannot be pressed into service for believing that the tainted currency was passed on by the complainant to the appellant as illegal gratification. The prosecution ought to have produced corroborative evidence to connect the appellant with the commission of crime. It is well-settled that in trap cases, solitary statement of the complainant cannot be acted upon without corroborative. In addition to the absence of corroborative evidence, the conviction in this case is also unsustainable on the ground, that neither the Magistrate nor the Inspector Police heard the conversation nor they saw the passage of the tainted currency from the complainant to the appellant. I find support, in my view, from the judgment delivered by this Court reported as A I R 1948 Lah. 27, 1968 P Cr. L J 670, 1960 P Cr. L J 963, 1972 P Cr. L J 836 and 1971 P Cr. L J -723. 6. I have also noted with concern that there is material discrepancy as to the mode and manner of recovery as well. It is also pertinent to mention that at the time of the alleged passing of the tainted currency, as Additional Naib-Tehsildar and two others employees of the Revenue Department were sitting in the room where allegedly the tainted currency was passed. In these circumstances, I am not prepared to believe that the appellant would have dared to accept the illegal gratification in presence of his superiors. 7. For the foregoing reasons I would accept this appeal, and set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption. The appellant is hereby acquitted of the charge. M.Y.H. Appeal accepted.