1983 P Cr (PLP)

Co‑accused Rasool Bux in his 342, Cr. P. C. statement Exh. 9 admitted to be public servant, posted as peon in the office of A. C. O., Guddu Barrage, Mirpur Mathelo in the year 1975. According to him Muhammad Issa gave him Rs. 200 and those were secured from his possession by the trap party, but he had no knowledge that the money was illegal gratification, as he had come from outside. He did not know why P. Ws. bad deposed against him. He wanted to lead defence but on 16‑7‑1978 he gave statement that he did not want to examine any defence witness. The learned trial Court taking into consideration the evidence adduced before it, while acquitting co‑accused Rasool Bux, convicted and sentenced the appellant abovenamed as hereinbefore mentioned and consequently appellant abovenamed 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 tainted money was not recovered from the possession of the appellant. (b) Prosecution has led no evidence to establish that appellant accepted the bribe in question. (c) That no P. W. has involved the appellant at all. In view of above submissions, the learned Advocate for the appellant submitted, that conviction and sentences awarded to appellant cannot legally be maintained. The learned Advocate appearing for the State at the outset submitted, that he was not supporting the impugned judgment, as prosecution has failed to prove its case against the above appellant, beyond reasonable doubt. I have taken into consideration the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and have gone through R & P of the learned trial Court as well as through the impugned judgment. P. W. 1 Qutubudin in his statement before the learned trial Court in his cross‑examination admitted, that he did not see complainant giving money to above appellant nor he saw appellant passing on said money to acquitted co‑accused, from whose possession the tainted money was actually recovered. P. W. 2 Ali Muhammad, complainant in his statement before the learned trial Court stated, that co‑accused Rasool Bux had demanded bribe from him, which was settled at Rs. 200 and on the day of tra, he had paid the said amount to acquitted co‑accused Rasool Bux, in presence of appellant, who thereafter at the request of Rasool Bux, took out his application for disposal and Mashir gave signal and raiding party came and secured the money from pocket of acquitted co‑accused Rasool Bux. In cross he admitted, that he did not mention in F. I. R. that he gave money to appellant, who passed on the same to co‑accused Rasool Bux. P. W. 3 Malang is Mashir of recovery of tainted money. He also corroborated‑the statement of P. W. 2 about payment of Rs. 200 to co‑accused. Rasool, Bux. In his cross he denied that money was given to appellant and he passed on the same to Rasool Beg P. W. 4 Muhammad Rafiq. S. I. P. in his statement before the learned trial Court stated, that complainant and Mashir told him that money was passed to appellant, who passed on the same to co‑accused Rasool Bux. It is clear from the above statements of P. Ws. that above appellant neither received tainted money nor had he demanded the same from complai nant. It is also admitted position, that tainted money was found in pocket of acquitted co‑accused Rasool Bux. In view of this, I see no reason to agree with the conclusions and findings of the learned trial Court, that prosecution has established its case against above appellant, by statement of Magistrate and 10 as well as by F. I. R. in the face of the statements of P. W. 2 All Muhammad (complainant) and P. W 3 Malang (Mashir). In my opinion, prosecution has failed to establish its case against the above appellant completely. Therefore I allow the above appeal and set aside convictions of, the appellant and sentences awarded to him by impugned judgment and acquit him and discharge the bail bonds executed by the appellant in above appeal. Appeal accented.