1994 PLP 2029 (MLD)

The appellant, Muhammad Akhtar Siddiqui was convicted under section 161, P.P.C. and section. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, by the learned Senior Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore, on 31-3-1990 and sentenced to 9 months' R.I. plus a-fine of Rs.1,000 (Rupees one thousand) or in default thereof to suffer further R.I. for three months. The convict has challenged his conviction and sentence by filing this appeal before this Court.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant was working as a Copy clerk in Sessions Court, Lahore. An application was moved by Rao Shamshad Ali (complainant) for obtaining a certified copy of some order. This application was moved by him on 3-9-1988. The allegation is that the appellant did not give the requisite copy of the order and instead demanded illegal gratification from the complainant. In consequence, the complainant agreed to pay the appellant a sum of Rs.1OO as bribe money in lieu of giving him the requisite copy of the order. In the meantime, the complainant informed the Anti-Corruption Department that the appellant was demanding from him the payment of illegal gratification. A party consisting of Syed Riaz All Shah, MIC, Zia-ul-l11 Inspector ACE, Muhammad Safdar ASI, Shaukat All Constable, Muhammad Rafique Constable was constituted to raid the office of the appellant. A raid was conducted and as a result thereof, the tainted currency note of. the denomination of Rs.1OO was recovered.

3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, produced Muhammad Safdar, ASI ACE (P.W.1), Syed Riaz Ali Shah MIC (P.W.2), Rao Shamshad (P.W.3), Sh. Zia-ul-Haq D.S.P. DACE (P.W.4). The appellant denied the legation levelled against him under section 342, Cr.P.C. and stated that he falsely been implicated in the case and that he had nothing to do with the receipt of the bribe money.

4. It is strenuously argued by the learned counsel that there is not a shred of evidence to show that the receipt .of bribe money was seen by the prosecution witnesses. The members of the raiding party also did not hear the conversation which took place between the complainant and the appellant at the time of occurrence. In such a situation, it is, therefore, submitted that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt to the accused. The learned state Counsel has half-heartedly supported the conviction and sentence of the appellant by adopting the reasons already given in the judgment.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully read the entire record with their assistance. Muhammad Safdar A.S.I. P.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination that he did not see the complainant while handing over the tainted money to the accused and that he went ahead only after receipt of signal by the complainant. Similarly, Syed Riaz All Shah, MIC (P.W.2) admitted in his cross-examination that he did not hear any conversation between the appellant and the complainant at the time when the I tainted money was paid by the complainant to the accused. Likewise, Sh. Zia?ul-Haq D.S.P. (P.W.4) deposed in his cross-examination that the members of the raiding party did not overhear any conversation between the accused and the complainant at the time of raid. It had already been held by this Court in Muhammad Tahir v. The State 1992 PCr.LJ 490, Nazir Ahmad v. The State 1988 PCr.LJ 775 and Tariq Mahmood v. The State 1985 PCr.LJ 1105, that the prosecution had to prove that the members of the raiding party not only saw the payment of the tainted money to the accused but also overheard the conversation between the bribe-giver and the bribe-receiver. In my view, the Prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence in these circumstances. It is, therefore, not at all worth-credence. The plea which was taken by the appellant m his statement appears to be more near to truth inasmuch as, at the relevant fie, the copy of the requisite order was not yet ready and another date was given to the complainant to receive it. It is in the evidence that the complainant was annoyed with the appellant and as such the possibility of the false implication of the appellant in this case cannot be excluded. This being so, I proceed to set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant. He is acquitted of the charge. He is already on bail and as such shall be didscharged of the liability of his bail bond. The appeal succeeds and is allowed. N.H.w./M-1683/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed.