1999 PLP 366 (MLD)

On the conclusion of the trial the appellant was convicted and sentenced as above. Mr. A.R. Farooq Pirzada learned, counsel for .the appellant urged the following substantial points: (i) That for the purpose of corruption case it is necessary that the raiding party must see the transaction and also hear the conversation, (ii) It must be proved that the nature of transaction was illegal gratification. According to him the sum of Rs.70 secured from the person of appellant was the sale consideration of watch and that (iii) there is enmity between the complainant and the appellant which has been established on record. Therefore, it could not be conclusively held that the transaction was illegal gratification and that substantial doubt ' exists and the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the following case law. (i) Abdul Hamid v. The State (1984 PCr.LJ 2774), (ii) Zulfiqar Ali v. The State (1985 PCr.LJ 1449), (iii) Riasat Ali v. The State (1985 PCr.LJ 2770), (iv) Ahmed Abdul Rahim v. The State (1985 PCr.LJ 1639) (v) Muhammad Abdullah v. The State (1986 PCr.LJ 1839), (vi) Din Muhammad v. The State (1986 PCr.LJ 1973), (vii) Muhammad Ashraf v. the State (1996 SCMR 181). Learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing for the State has opposed this appeal. According to him whether the tainted money was a sale consideration, no such question was put to the complainant when he was being examined in the trial Court. The sale consideration is an after thought. Recover of tainted money from the person of appellant is a conclusive proof that he has received the same and the presumption would be that such amount was so received by the appellant and recovered from his possession would lead credence that it was for the purpose of illegal gratification. The information of illegal gratification was urged before Anti-Corruption Authorities before the raid has taken place. I have given anxious consideration to the pleas urged before me. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the deposition of mashir Allah Yar who was examined vide Exh.No.4. According to him it was because of annoyance of the complainant and since they exchanged hot words with each other that the story of illegal gratification appears to be concocted. It is further urged that in order to take revenue for discharge of two Beldars this allegation of corruption has been made. Appellant was working as forest guard. He had neither the power nor the authority to employ Beldars or to discharge/terminate their service, Therefore, on that account to contention of Mr. A.R. Farooq Pirzada appears to be fantastic but devoid of reality. Corruption has become the order of the day. It has many faces and each face of corruption leads to the ultimate disgrace of the nation and hampers progress as well as development. Corruption erodes the values of society. It is high time that the corruption (be it for one rupee or one million) be tackled very seriously. Once the allegation of corruption is established beyond reasonable doubt the appellant could not be given the benefit of technicalities as the technicalities cannot subvert the process of justice. The defence that has been taken by the appellant is that money was recovered from him but it was not illegal gratification and his further contention is that because he had sold his watch and this was the remaining consideration of the sale of his watch. This contention which has been taken in defence was not put to the complainant. No question was put to him as to when the watch was sold and that the money so recovered was a sale consideration. Only complainant was competent to state whether the amount so recovered was sale consideration or whether he had purchased such watch from the appellant. I would, therefore, hold that such plea of appellant was after thought and does not inspire confidence. Since I am convinced that the money was recovered from the appellant and it was indeed illegal gratification, therefore, I would not indulge into the technicalities as nothing turns of those technicalities urged by the learned counsel for the appellant and for these reasons the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the appellant are distinguishable. Under the circumstances, I would hold that the prosecution has established the case against appellant. After hearing the parties in open Courts on 16-10-1997 this appeal was dismissed for the reasons to be recorded subsequently. These are the reasons for passing such order. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. It is ordered that he shall be arrested and remanded to judicial custody to serve out the remaining sentence. H.B.T./R-234/K Appeal dismissed.