1986 P Cr (PLP)

Munir Ahmad for Appellant. Abdur Rasheed for the State. Date of hearing: 24th November, 1985. This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Lahore whereby he, on 31‑5‑1982, convicted. Ishtiaq Ahmad appellant under section 161 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to 11 years' R.1.

2. The appellant was a Patwari. The charge against him was that he demanded and accepted Rs.100 as illegal gratification from Sher Ali P.W.

2. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case, prosecution examined three witnesses. Sher Ali P.W. 2 appeared to prove demand as well as acceptance of Rs.100 as illegal gratification from him by the appellant. Muhammad Nawaz, Magistrate P.W. 1 and Aftab Muzaffar Inspector, A.C.E., P.W. 3, were produced to prove the recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant. They supported the prosecution case.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all incriminating circumstances and raised plea of false implication. In defence he produced Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Yaqoob. Muhammad Aslam defence 1 stated that he was present at the time of raid in the Patwarknana. Sher Ali complainant came there. He gave Pass Book to the appellant for entering the mutation number thereon which he did. Thereafter, Sher Ali put Rs.100 currency note in the mutation register which wad subsequently recovered by the Magistrate from the register. Muhammad Yaqoob D.W. made similar statement.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt in that there is no evidence of demand of illegal gratification by the appellant from the complainant; that there is no evidence to the effect that the appellant received the tainted currency notes as illegal gratification from the complainant; that the complainant in his statement before the Court has frankly admitted that he had put the currency notes in the mutation register in order to implicate the appellant; that the complainant had also reason to falsely involve the appellant inasmuch as five days before the raid he alongwith his uncle Bashir Ahmad had approached the appellant for making certain corrections in the Khasra Girdawaris but the latter had refused to oblige him and there had ensued altercation between his uncle Bashir Ahmad and the appellant and that the two defence witnesses whose presence has been admitted by the complainant and the Magistrate. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. I find that the Magistrate who is quite independent witness has categorically stated that he had seen the' appellant receiving the tainted currency notes from the complainant and placing it in the mutation register. No doubt, the complainant has tried to support the appellant by saying that neither the latter had demanded any bribe from him nor did he accept Rs.100 from him as illegal gratification and that he had placed the tainted currency notes in the mutation register in order to implicate him but there are reasons to believe that he has dishonestly made this part of statement in order to oblige the appellant. The witnesses has duly been confronted with his earlier statements made by him before the Magistrate wherein he has stated that the appellant had not only demanded bribe from him but has also accepted Rs.100 as tainted currency notes from him as illegal gratification. The Inspector Anti‑Corruption has also supported the Magistrate. They have successfully faced the test of cross- examination. I do not see any inherent infirmity in their statements. In view of the statement of the Magistrate that he saw the appellant a receiving the tainted currency notes from the complainant, there is no reasonable possibility of the version given by the appellant as well as defence witnesses being true. For these reasons, I am convinced that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant.

7. This brings me to the question of sentence. I find that the, appellant has already suffered agony of protracted trial; that he remained; in jail for some time as an under‑trial prisoner and that he also remained in jail as a convict. In these circumstances, I feel inclined to reduce c the sentence of 1 years' R.I. to nine months' R.I. That will meet the case. The appellant shall surrender himself before the learned trial Court immediately. The learned trial Court shall also issue warrants for his arrest and detention to serve out the remaining sentence. S.A. Order accordingly.