1985 P Cr (PLP)

Date of hearing: 5th November, 1984. This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Sargodha whereby he on 19‑5‑1983 convicted Barkat Ali appellant under section 161, P.P.C. and sentenced him to one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000, in default thereof to further R.I. for 3 months.

2. The appellant was a Patwari. The charge against him was that he accepted Rs.300 as illegal gratification from Sher Muhammad complainant, P.W. for the supply of copies of Revenue Record. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case prosecution examined four witnesses. Sher Muhammad P.W.1 appeared to prove acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant from him. Muhammad Jamil, Magistrate P.W. 3 and Muhammad Bashir, Inspector Anti‑Corruption P.W.4 were produced to prove the recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant. The witnesses supported the prosecution case. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant while admitting the recovery of tainted currency notes explained that the same were received by him as fees of the copies and not as illegal gratification. In this connection he tendered documents Exh. D.A. and D. B.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to prove that the tainted currency notes were accepted by the appellant as illegal gratification. The learned counsel for the State stated that since Rs.300 was not the fee of certified copies of the documents which were supplied to the complainant, therefore, the same was received by the appellant as illegal gratification and not as fee for copies.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the receipt of Rs.300 by the appellant from the complainant is not only proved but also .an admitted fact. The question for determination is whether the appellant had accepted the same as illegal gratification or not. I find that there was no conversation at all between the appellant and the complainant before the passing on of the tainted currency notes to the appellant. Sher Muhammad complainant, P.W.1, in his cross‑examination stated: When he was sent by the Raiding Party to pass on the tainted currency notes to the appellant, the complainant enquired from the appellant as to whether the copies were ready for delivery or not and simultaneously gave Rs.300 to the appellant who delivered copies to him. He stated:‑ I further find that the prosecution has not cared to bring record the usual fee for the copies of the documents which were prepared by the appellant. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant had received Rs.300 as illegal gratification.

7. For what has been stated above, giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charge. M. Y. H. Appeal accepted.