1983 PLP 561 (SCMR)

MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑Appellant Muhammad Afzal was convicted under section 161, P. P. C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentenced to R. I. for one year on each count, by the learned Special Judge, Lahore vide judgment dated 30‑6‑1971. The sentences on both counts however, were ordered to run concurrently. Appeal before the High Court was dismissed but as both the offences were identical under the aforesaid two sections, conviction of the appellant under section 161, P. P. C. only was maintained and his sentence was reduced to fine of Rs. 1,000 in default, R. I. for six months. Petitioner filed a petition seeking leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 9‑6‑1975, and leave was granted by this Court vide order dated 17‑1‑1978.

2. The appellant was posted as a Clerk in the office of the District Food Controller, Gujrat in the year 1968. Muhammad Sadiq complainant (P. W. 1) was running a rice buskin' machine in Lala Chak which was sealed by the officials of the Food Department for being without license. It is alleged that the appellant contacted the complainant and informed him that if he (complainant) could pay him Rs. 100 he would allow the operation of the machine sealed by the Department. The complainant accordingly made the payment and the appellant removed the seal of the machine and the complainant started its operation. After about 12 days the accused/appellants visited the complainant who gave him about 10 seers of rice. After about another 10/ 12 days the complainant learnt that the officials of the Food Department had removed the machine to Gujrat so he contacted the appellant who demanded Rs. 200 and eventually settled for Rs. 50 which the complainant promised to pay soon.

3. The complainant informed Muhammad Tufail, Sub‑Inspector And Corruption Establishment ; a case was registered add on the application of the Sub Inspector the A. D. M. deputed Muhammad Safdar Khan, Magistrate to supervise the raid. Accordingly the raid was arranged and numbers of the currency notes produced by the complainant were noted by the Magistrate and the currency notes were handed over back to the complainant. The complainant, according to the plan, while passing over the tainted currency notes to the accused/appellant, gave a signal to the raiding party and when the appellant was handing over the second part of the machine to the complainant, the Magistrate entered the room, alongwith the police, disclosed his identity and demanded the tainted currency notes from him which the appellant took out from an almirah and produced before the Magistrate who tallied their numbers, and recorded the statement.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the prosecution case is full of improbabilities as to the recovery of the currency notes and there is no evidence worth mentioning ; that the conduct of the complainant is unbelievable ; that on 15‑5‑1968 it was not a part of duty of accused/appellant to release the machine and as such there was no reason for the complainant for approaching the appellant for the purpose ; that the machine was taken into possession by the police on the basis of F. I. R. No. 132 on 29‑4‑1968 as it was being run without licence and there is no evi dence on record to establish that custody of the machine was given to the Dist rict Food Controller; that none of the members of the Raiding Party heard the conversation between the complainant and the appellant at the relevant time nor anyone of them had actually seen the passing of the tainted currency notes by the complainant which are alleged to have been recovered from the appellant.

5. We have gone through the evidence produced by the prosecution and find the same quite sufficient to sustain the conviction. P. W. Muhammad Safdar Khan, Magistrate 2nd Class stated that he had supervised the raid, noted the numbers of the occurrancy notes; and after the moue, had been passed on to the accused/appellant, he on the signal of the complainant, went to the office of the appellant; introduced himself and asked the accused/appellant to deliver the tainted money, and the appellant, after a little hesitation, took out the money from his room in his presence from an almirah; he (P. W. 4) then tallied the numbers of the currency notes which he had earlier noted as Exh. P. W. 4/5B and recorded the statement of the appellant and P. W. Muhammad Sadiq ; and also took into possession two parts of the machine Exh. P. 6 and the same were delivered by the accused to Sadiq P. W. vide Memo. Exh. P. W. 2/B. Nothing special has been elicited from the witness in the cross‑examination. Moreover the statements of other prosecution witnesses corroborate the statement of the Magistrate. Thus we find that this appeal has no merit and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.