1988 P Cr (PLP)

Formal charge was framed against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty. At the trial prosecution examined complainant Qamar Ali P.W.1, Mashir Ahmad Hassan Khan P.W.2, Inspector Faqir Mohammad P.W.3 and Nazar Mohammad A.C.M. P.W.4. After close of the prosecution case the statement of the appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C in which he denied the allegations. He has further stated that complainant had called him to his shop to pay back the amount of Rs.200 which his brother had paid to the complainant as advance rent. He has admitted the arrest on the above date and the recovery of the amount, but according to him the amount was paid to him by the complainant which was paid as advance rent by his brother Ghazanfar. He has further stated that he was not competent to get the shop demolished. That he was transferred to Drigh Office on 11-10-1982, and was arrested on 16-11-1982 and from that date he remained suspended for six months. He has produced two letters as Exh.l6 and Exh.17. The appellant examined Mushtaq Ahmed, Mohammad Nasir and Ghazanfar Abbas in his defence. The complainant has fully supported the contents of his F.I.R. and has further deposed that Inspector Faqir Mohammad had given him Rs.200 as tainted money. He had taken the raiding party consisting of Nazar Mohammad Magistrate, Inspector Faqir Mohammad and his subordinate staff and Mashir Ahmad Hassan Khan to his house. The police party and the Magistrate waited for the accused upto 1-00 p.m. but the accused did not come and, therefore, he returned the amount to the Inspector. That on 3-11-1982 accused came to his house and demanded the balance of Rs.200 from him but the complainant told him that he would pay the amount on the next day. That he went to the Anti-Corruption Office alongwith P.W. Ahmad Hassan Khan and informed Inspector Faqir Mohammad that the accused had come for taking the balance of Rs.200. The Anti-Corruption Police, Magistrate, and Mashir Ahmad Hassan Khan came alongwith him to the house of P.W. Ahmad Hassan Khan. The raiding party waited in the house of Ahmad Hassan Khan. At 12-30 P.M. accused came to his house and he brought him to the house of Ahmad Hassan Khan where the accused demanded money in presence of Ahmad Hassan Khan. The raiding party was sitting in the adjoining room. According to the complainant he paid Rs.200 in presence of Mashir Ahmad Hasan Khan. After the payment the accused went out, in the meanwhile Anti-Corruption Police also came out and caught hold of accused and secured Rs.200 from him which he was carrying in his hand. The Magistrate compared the numbers of the notes with the numbers mentioned in the Mashirnama of handing over the tainted money, and such Mashirnama was prepared. He has produced the F.I.R. as Exh.5. He denied a suggestion that this amount' was paid to the accused as the amount which was paid to him by brother of the accused namely Ghazanfar as advance rent. Ahmad Hassan Khan, P.W.2 has deposed that the police had handed over tainted money to the complainant in his presence and such Mashirnama was prepared in his presence. The Mashirnama has been produced as Exh.7. He has further deposed that on 4-11-1982 he had gone alongwith the complainant to the Anti-Corruption Office. That they brought the Anti-Corruption police and the Magistrate to his house. The Magistrate and the police waited in one room of his house. At about 12-30 p.m. complainant brought the accused to his house and they sat in another room. The accused demanded Rs.200 from the complainant in his presence and the money was paid by the complainant. As soon as the accused went out he was caught by the Anti-Corruption police and the Magistrate, and the amount of Rs.200 was secured from him and such Mashirnama was prepared, which has been produced by him. Nazar Mohammad P.W.4 has deposed that he was A.C.M., Karachi at the time of incident, and he had supervised the trap proceedings. He has further deposed that on 4-11-1982 he had accompanied the raiding party to Landhi where he alongwith Inspector and other police staff waited in the house of Ahmad Hassan Khan. According to him the complainant brought the accused to the house of Ahmad Hassan Khan, where accused had a talk with him and he paid Rs.200 to the accused in presence of Ahmad Hassan Khan. The payment of money was also witnessed by him. As soon as the accused went out, he and the Inspector caught hold of the accused and secured the tainted money from him. He has produced the raid report as Exh.14. Faqir Mohammad Inspector, Anti-Corruption P.W.3 had conducted the raid and investigated the case. He has fully supported the prosecution case. I have heard Mr. Azad Bin Haidar, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the State and has also gone through the R&P of the case. It was contended by Mr. Azad Bin Haider that Mashir Ahmad Hassan Khan was an interested witness, and that there were contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. That no witness was examined on the point of first demand, that the amount and the numbers of the notes were not mentioned in the raid memo. Exh.14. Lastly the sanction was defective. Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui appearing for the State has contended that the recovery of money has been admitted by the appellant. That the complainant and P.Ws. had no reason to implicate the appellant falsely. He has further contended that the prosecution evidence was natural, reliable, and the appellant was rightly convicted by the trial Court. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel. The demand and acceptance of bribe has been proved through the complainant, Mashir Ahmad Hassan Khan, Mr. Nazar Mohammad Magistrate and Faqir Mohammad Inspector. It has been stated by Mashir Ahmad Hassan Khan, Mr. Nazar Mohammad Magistrate, and Faqir Mohammad Inspector that they had witnessed the payment of Rs.200 by the complainant to the accused. It was also stated by Mashir Ahmad Hassan and Inspector Faqir Mohammad that the second demand was made by the accused from the complainant while complainant and accused were sitting in the adjoining room. Even the Magistrate has deposed that there was a talk between the complainant and the accused in the adjoining room but he could not understand the same. The amount of Rs.200 was immediately secured from the accused while he was going out of the house and the recovery has not been denied by the appellant/ accused. The Mashir, Magistrate and the Inspector had no reason to implicate the appellant falsely. The defence of the appellant appears to be absurd and unnatural inasmuch as if D.W. Ghazanfar brother of the appellant was not in a position to arrange for a guarantor and Rs.1,500 as security, and wanted the complainant to return the amount paid to him as advance rent, there was no reason for the complainant to be annoyed and to falsely implicate the accused. The evidence of D.W. Mohammad Nasir and D.W. Ghazanfar is unreliable inasmuch as neither any receipt of payment of advance rent was produced nor any agreement of tenancy was alleged to have been executed by the complainant. The D.W. Ghazanfar is real brother of the appellant and he had admitted in his cross-examination that D.W. Mohammad Nasir was his friend. In these circumstances they being interested in the appellant, their evidence was rightly discarded by the learned trial Judge. As far as evidence of D.W. Mushtaq Ahmad was concerned, he had produced letters of suspension and re-instatement of the appellant. He had admitted in cross-examination that appellant Zafar Abbas was caught red-handed while taking bribe. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that Mashir Ahmad Hassan was interested on the ground that he was neighbourer of the complainant is untenable. Merely because Mashir and the complainant were on visiting terms or that they were living in the same Mohallah, would not mean that the Mashir would supports the complainant in a false case. Even the complainant had no motive to implicate the appellant falsely. The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there were contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it would suffice to say that the contradictions were minor in nature and in view of the fact that the appellant had admitted the acceptance of Rs.200 and recovery by a Magistrate and Anti-Corruption Police, the contradictions did not affect the veracity of the evidence of the witnesses. So far as the sanction was concerned, it shows that on or about 1-11-1982 and 4-11-1982 the appellant had demanded Rs.200 as illegal gratification from complainant Qamar Ali as motive or reward to show him favour for not demolishing his four shops and that he accepted Rs.200 as bribe from the complainant in presence of Mashir Ahmad Hassan Khan, Mr. Nazar Mohammad Pathan Magistrate, and, therefore, there was no defect in the sanction. That from the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the defence evidence was rightly discarded by the learned trial Judge. The judgment of the trial Court does not call for interference; and, therefore, the appeal is hereby dismissed. However, the appellant's will be entitled to the benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. I have decided the above appeal on 19-8-1987 by a short order and these are the reasons for the same. The appellant is on bail, his bail bond stands cancelled. M. Y. H./Z-45/K Appeal dismissed.