1968 P Cr (PLP)

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417 Appeal against acquittal Charge under S. 165-A, P. P. C. No corroboration of evidence of accomplice forthcoming-Conclusions arrived at by trial Judge jar shed by evidence en record-Consideration of prosecution evidence crud probabilities of case leaving no reason to find fault with manner of appreciation of evidence-Appeal against acquittal dismissed. Major Mufti Nazar Muhammad for A.-G. for the State. Mian Qamar-ud-Din for Respondent, SHAUKAT ALI, J.--This is an appeal under section 417, Cr. P. Code, by the State praying that the order of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Multan, dated the 13th February 1965, acquitting Hassan Shah, a peon in the District Courts Multan, of an offence under section 165-A, P. P. C. be set aside.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 12th November 1963, a bail application in a murder case "State v. Faqir Muhammad and others" was filed in the office of the Sessions Judge, Multan. The Sessions Judge was on tour. The Clerk of Court ordered that the same may be laid before the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan on 14th November 1963. Khan Amirzada Khan, Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, admitted the petition and issued notice to the State for 19th November 1963. On or about 16th November 1963, Sheikh Masud Hussain P. W. took over as second Additional Sessions Judge, Multan. On 19th November 1963, when this bail matter came up for hearing before Khan Amirzada Khan; Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, he transferred the same to Sh. Masud Hussain, for disposal, and directed the counsel to appear in the said Court on 25th November. 1963. On that day, the Second Additional Sessions Judge, was on leave. The Reader listed this petition for hearing for 4th December 1963. On 2nd December 1963, Hassan Shah respon dent approached Muhammad Asghar P. W. Stenographer attached to the Court of Sh. Masud Hussain, with the request to approach the second Additional Sessions Judge to admit the accused to bail in the said bail application and that the relations of the accused were willing to pay Rs. 1,000.00, as illegal gratification for the grant of bail to the concerned Additional Sessions Judge. Muhammad Asghar P. W. showed his inability, whereupon the respondent enquired from him if Jamal Din P. W. orderly was in a position to speak to the Additional Sessions Judge in the matter. Muhammad Asghar P. W. told him that he could not say anything about it and he himself should ascertain from the said orderly. On that very evening Muhammad Asghar P. W. went to the residence of Sh. Masud Hussain as he was to dictate some judgments but the Additional Sessions Judge was not there. He met Jamal Din orderly and told him the entire talk that had transpired between him and the respondent saying to bring this matter to the notice of the Additional Sessions Judge. The case of the prosecution further is that the respondent also approached Jamal Din P. W. in the premises of the Sessions Courts at Multan and asked him to secure the bail in that case. He offered him rupees one thousand for the Additional Sessions Judge; rupees one hundred for him and retained rupees one hundred for himself. Jamal Din orderly, first showed his inability but on the insistence of the respondent agreed to speak to the second Additional Sessions Judge. In the evening Jamal Din disclosed this fact to the second Additional Sessions Judge. On 3rd December 1963, Sh. Masud Hussain enquired from Muhammad Asghar P. W. if Hassan Shah had any talk with him and he narrated what had transpired between him and the respondent. On 4th December 1963, the second Additional Sessions Judge brought this matter to the notice of the Sessions Judge, Multan, and it was decided to lay a trap. After this meeting the second Additional Sessions Judge adjourned all the cases fixed for that day and later on asked his peon that he was willing to accept the bribe of Rs. 1,000 and that Hassan Shah should be asked to deliver this money to him at his residence. Jamal Din, however, was not informed that this arrangement had been made to trap the respondent. On that day the second Additional Sessions Judge rose for lunch a: 1-00 p. m. He asked Jamal Din to bring a tonga for him. When Jamal Din was on the way for bringing the tonga Hassan Shah respondent met Jamal Din P. W. and gave him currency notes of Rs. 1,000 wrapped in a hand kerchief containing a chit describing the names of the accused whose bail application was pending adjudication. Jamal Din brought a tonga and boarded the same along with the second Additional Sessions Judge. While sitting in the tonga Jamal Din P. W. delivered the handkerchief containing currency notes to Sh. Masud Hussain. He went to the Sessions Judge and apprised him of it and also submitted a report describing all the facts therein. The Sessions Judge recorded the statements of Jamal, Din and Muhammad Asghar P. Ws. He forwarded the- report Exh. P. A. of Sh. Masud Hussain to the D. S. P., Anti-Corruption Establishment. A formal first information report Exh. P. E. was recorded at Police Station Multan Cantt. by Ahmad Khan, Head Constable, P. W. ,5.

3. We have reviewed the entire evidence in this case. Jamal Din P. W. was instrumental in the negotiation for the purpose of offering bribe and it was through him that the bribe was negotiat ed and settled. Therefore, he is an accomplice in crime. It is well-settled that it is unsafe to convict a person on the evidence of an accomplice unless corroborated in material particulars. The learned Special Judge rightly weighed the evidence of Jamal Din P. W. with full knowledge and recognition that it is the evidence of an accomplice and finding that it was a tainted evidence, rightly sought for corroboration. He found that there was no mention in the report of Sh. Masud Hussain that he had seen the respondent passing the money to Jamal Din P. W. He rightly concluded that it was not safe to rely on the testimony o Sh. Masud Hussain that he had seen the respondent in the act of handing over the potli to Jamal Din P. W. The criticism made by the learned Special Judge as to the evidence of Jamal Din and Sh. Masud Hussain P. Ws. is well-reasoned and it can be safely said that there are material discrepancies in their statements, which make the case of the prosecution doubtful. The conclusions of the learned Special Judge are justified by the evidence on the record. He was right in holding that there was no corroboration) of the evidence of accomplice Jamal Din.

4. On s careful consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the probabilities of the case, we see no reason to find fault with the manner of the appreciation of evidence, which is to be found in the findings of the learned Special Judge. We would, therefore, dismiss the State appeal and discharge the notice issued to the respondent. Appeal dismissed.