1995 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Sultan Saleem Jabar, a petition‑writer of Sheikhupura, reported to Anti‑Corruption Establishment that his client Bashir Ahmad got a deed of sale scribed through him, which after registration was given back for getting the same incorporated in Revenue Record and for the said purpose, a special power of attorney was executed in his favour by Bashir Ahmad. Muhammad Sultan Saleem Jabar contacted and gave photo copy of the deed to Abdul Rehman, Patwari Halqa Kot Ranjeet, District Sheikhupura who demanded Rs.400 for obliging him. Muhammad Sultan Saleem Jabar paid Rs.200 to the Patwari in presence of Bashir Ahmad and Ghulam Rasul, P.Ws. and promised to pay the balance. A raid was consequently conducted by Muhammad Riaz, Circle Officer, P.W.4, under the supervision of Malik Masud Ahmad, M.I.C., P.W.2 and Rs.200 were recovered after the same were passed on to the Patwari. Consequently, Case No.113/1990 at Anti‑Corruption Establishment was registered against Abdul Rehman, Patwari under section 161, P.P.C. and section 5(2) 47, P.CA.

2. The accused was tried in the Court of Mr. Munir Ahmad Sheikh, Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Lahore. Muhammad Sultan Saleem Jabar appeared as P.W.1 and supported his report Exh.P.W.l/3. He stated that he was given special power of attorney Exh.P.W.l/1 and copy of sale‑deed Exh.P.l/2 by Bashir Ahmad and after demand of the accused he paid Rs.200 to him in presence of Ghulam Rasul P.W.3. Then he made statement Exh.P.W.l/4 before Magistrate who prior to raid, noted down numbers of two currency notes Exh.P.1 and Exh.P.2 which were passed on to the accused which the raiding party recovered later alongwith another sale‑deed and secured vide memos. Exh.P.W.l/7 and Exh.P.W.l/8. Sale‑deed Exh.P.W.l/2 was got recovered and secured vide memo. Exh.P.W.l/9. In cross‑examination, he admitted as having arranged similar raids upon three persons. He also admitted that in one case, he withdrew the allegation and was consequently convicted under section 193, P.P.C., and on admission was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.400. He also admitted that he was involved in two cases on the allegations that he helped in preparation of forged sale‑deeds but stated that both the cases were made on the report of the same party. He also stated that he was human rights activist and a poet and that he tried to arrange raids on all corrupt officials being a social worker.

3. Malik Masud Ahmad, Magistrate 1st Class, P.W.2 proved the order Exh.P.W.2/1 whereby he was directed to supervise the raid. He stated that after noting down numbers of two currency notes of Rs.100 denomination, the complainant was sent to the accused and later they went into the Patwarkhana and introduced the raiding part' on which the accused threw the bribe‑money on the ground. He denied the suggestion that the money was concealed in a sale‑deed. He proved other proceedings of the raid and also the first statement of the accused Exh.P.W.2/4. 4, Ghulam Rasul P.W.3 is the marginal witness of deed of special power of attorney Exh‑P.W.1/1. He stated that he alongwith Bashir Ahmad and complainant went to the Patwari for entering the mutation in record and in his presence, the accused demanded Rs.400 out of which Rs.200 were paid. He denied the suggestion that he never went to the accused and was deposing falsely.

5. Muhammad Riaz, Investigating Officer, appeared as P.W.4. He recorded F.I.R. Exh.P.W.1/3 and proved other proceedings. He stated that the accused‑appellant threw the bribe money on the ground, which he was holding in his hand when the raiding party introduced itself. In cross‑examination, he denied the suggestion that he had prepared incorrect proceedings or that he had planted sale‑deed Exh.P.l/2 on the accused. He stated that he saw the bribe money, unconcealed, in the hands of the accused before he threw the same on the ground.

6. The accused in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. in answer to question No.4 stated "that the allegation is incorrect. On 21‑1‑1990 on the day of raid, I was present in my Patwarkhana. The registered deed Exh.P.W.l/5 was lying in a folded position at my desk. I was preparing myself to go out because I had to obtain a photostat copy of Exh.P.W.1/5. In the meantime, complainant Sultan Saleem Jabar came and sat near my seat. After one or two minutes, he left the place. I picked up registered deed Exh.P.W.1/5 and came at the terrace attached to the Patwarkhana. The raiding party carne there and introduced themselves to me. The registered sale‑deed fell on the ground and thereafter I came to know that its fold contained currency notes. I had no knowledge about them. I was not aware as to when complainant placed the currency notes in the folds of the deed. Neither I had demanded any illegal gratification nor it was given to me. I had never touched the currency notes:"

7. The learned trial Court finding the prosecution case as having been fully proved, convicted the appellant under section 161, P.P.C. vide judgment, dated 29‑1‑1991 and awarded him 15 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000 and in default of payment two months' R.I. further. The appellant has appealed to this Court against the said judgment.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the complainant Muhammad Saleem Sultan Jabar is a black‑mailer and has been arranging similar raids on public functionaries and then compromising the same after taking money from them. He referred to one case where the complainant withdrew the allegation of bribe taking against one Ghulam Murtaza and was convicted and fined under section 193, P.P.C. He further stated that there was no evidence of demand of bribe and the money recovered from the appellant was concealed in a sale‑deed and as such he did not know that any bribe had been passed on to him. He further argued that the raiding Magistrate did not overhear the conversation between the complainant and the accused and this aspect was fatal to the prosecution case.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the State has supported the impugned judgment and has submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved the case against the accused.

10. No doubt, Muhammad Sultan Saleem Jabar had beef,, complainant in a few other cases, but as far as present case is concerned there is no material on record which would show that Muhammad Sultan Saleem Jabar ever demanded money or expected any other favour from Abdul Rehman, Patwari, refusal whereof motivated him to arrange the raid. As a matter of fact, the accused denied as having ever known to him. There is no other evidence, which would suggest that the complainant ever demanded or tried to exact any money from the accused prior to conclusion of trial. As such there is no basis for levelling the complainant as black‑mailer or extortionist and it would not be realistic to exclude his testimony altogether.

11. The other mainstay of the defence is that the conversation between the complainant and the appellant preceding the raid was not overheard by the raiding Magistrate and money was passed on, wrapped surreptitiously in sale deed making it impossible for the Patwari to have known that he was accepting bribe and this raises a serious doubt about the case.

12. The principle that benefit should go to an accused where conversation at the time of passing on the bribe money is not overheard by the raiding Magistrate is not a principle of law but is only a rule of prudence and caution, and is not of universal applicability. This is attracted only in rare cases like where an accused candidly admits receipt of money at the outset and claims bona fides, which bona fides are, as the onus shifts on to him under the law, with reasonable element of certainty, shown to exist. The conduct of the accused is thus very relevant in such cases. In this case, the evidence conclusively shows that the accused was holding the bribe‑money in his hand and when the raiding party introduced itself, he threw that on the ground and in his first statement he denied having received any money. In the facts and circumstances of this case no benefit can be claimed by the appellant for not overhearing the conversation.

13. The demand of bribe has been proved by an independent witness Ghulam Rasul P.W.3 besides the complainant. Defence has not uttered a word to discredit this witness. The existence of special power‑of‑attorney and the sale‑deed show that the complainant and Ghulam Rasul had occasion to go to the appellant who had occasion to demand illegal gratification. The bribe money was found in the hands of the appellant by the Magistrate and the Investigating Officer. The contention of the appellant that the money was concealed, is controverted by independent evidence. The case against the IC appellant was adequately and sufficiently proved by witnesses who had no motive to falsely implicate him. There are no flaws in the prosecution version, benefit of which could be extended to the appellant. He has rightly been convicted by the trial Court. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant are maintained. The appeal be and same is hereby dismissed. N.H.Q./A‑692/L Appeal dismissed.