1983 P Cr (PLP)

Ghulam Sibtain the Inspector of Anti‑Corruption solicited the services of one Magistrate Mr. Baxal Khan before whom the F. I. R. and the complainant was produced. The Magistrate after verifying the F. I. R. told the Inspector that he would himself come to the Office of Anti‑Corrup tion Police. Thus at about mid‑day the complainant received the tainted amount of Rs. 400 i. e. Four one hundred rupee notes, in presence of mashirs Gulzar and Rashid. Thereafter the party proceeded to the office of the K. D. A. It was so arranged that the complainant would put off his cap when the appellant receives the amount. The Police and the Magistrate scattered taking their positions at vantage points. The accused came down from the office and after shaking hands took the complainant to the Afridi Hotel. The party of the Magistrate also followed the accused and the com plainant set down to take meals. After some time the refreshments were over and the money was given to the accused, who started counting them. The cap of the complainant went of as a signal and the party of the Magis trate pounded upon the appellant. The appellant in panic dropped the notes below the table and kept his foot on the bundle. How ever the bundle of the notes was secured from under the foot of the appel lant and he was arrested. This entire scene was witnessed by the Mashirs. Magistrate and the Policemen. The necessary Mushirnama were prepared on the spot and that the accused was taken away for further investigation. Subsequently he was challaned in trial Court to face the trial under sec tion 161, P. P. C. read with section 5 (2) of Act II, 1947. The appellant in his statement has denied the allegations, his bare denial does not indicate the circumstances under which he was arrested. Prosecu tion however examined the complainant. Exh. 4 the Mashir Gulzar Exh. 11 Major Akhtar Ali Exh. 13, Abdul Rashid Exh. 15 the Magistrate Baxal Khan Exh. 17 and Ghulam Shtain Exh.

18. The learned trial Court taking into consideration the evidence adduced before it convicted and sentenced the appellant as hereinbefore mentioned and consequently appellant has filed the above appeal, on the grounds mentioned in the memo. of appeal. The learned Advocate for the appellant in support of the above appeal submitted as under. (a) That recovery of the tainted amount from the appellant is doubtful, in view of the contradictory statement of the prosecution witnesses. (b) That the money in question was not recovered from the possession of the appellant, but from the ground. (c) That the charge framed against the appellant was defective, as no time, place or other details are given in the said charge (d) That no reliance can be placed on the statement of the prosecution witnesses on account of material contradictions inter se between the said prosecution witnesses. In view of the above submissions the learned Advocate for the appellant submitted, that prosecution has failed to establish its case against the appellant. The learned Advocate for the State on the other hand submitted, that be was fully supporting the impugned judgment, as recovery of the tainted money has been fully established by the statement of prosecution witnesses, against whom no enmity is alleged and the minor contradictions war se in, the statements of the prosecution witness do not make their , aments unreliable. I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and have gone through the R. &. P. of the learned trial Court as well as the impugned judgment. Prosecution case against the appellant rests upon the statements of the complainant, Mashir Gulzar and the Magistrate Buxal Khan, primarily in respect of the charge levied against the appellant. I have carefully gone through the statements of these prosecution witnesses and find their state ments straightforward and convincing. The appellant has alleged no enmity whatsoever against these prosecution witnesses and as such I see no reason to disbelieve their statements. The minor contradictions pointed out by the learned Advocate for the appellant are such which in my opinion do not adversely affect the prosecution case. In addition to this the prose cution witnesses have clearly stated, that on raiding party approaching the appellant, while he was counting the tainted money, the appellant threw the said money on the ground and tried to hide it be his foot. The contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant, that the learned Magistrate has not seen the Mashir earlier is belied by I. O. However such a slip on the part of the learned Magistrate does not go to the root of the prosecution case. The defence put up by the appellant in his statement under sec tion 342, Cr. P. C. and the statement of D. W. 1 Abdullah is not at all convincing as well as probable in my opinion. In view of these conclu sions of mine, in my opinion, prosecution has established its ca‑P against the appellant, beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore I find no merits in the above appeal, which is consequently dismissed. Since sentence awarded to the appellant was upto rising of the Court and the fine of Rs. 500 imposed on him which has been t accord ing to the learned Advocate for the appellant. It is not necessary for me to pass any further orders in this appeal. Appeal dismissed.