1985 P Cr (PLP)

Raft Siddiqui for the State. Date of hearing: 13th October, 1984. This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, Gujranwala at Lahore whereby he on 28‑8‑1983 convicted Abdur Rehman appellant under section 161, Cr.P.C. read with‑ section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to 2 months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500, in default thereof to further R.I. for 15 days.

2. The appellant was posted as Patwari. The charge against him was that he demanded and accepted Rs. 250 from Rana Muhammad Anwar, complainant P.W.2 as illegal gratification. He pleaded not guilty.

3. To prove its case the prosecution examined 5 witnesses. Rana Muhammad Anwar P.W.2 appeared to prove demand as well as acceptance of bribe money by the appellant from him. Hamid‑ud‑Din Bhatti, Magistrate P.W.5 and Syed Zulfiqar Ali Khan, Inspector P.W.3 were produced to prove the recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant. 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 from him stated that the money was relatable to the purchase of firewood and was not accepted by him as illegal gratification. In defence he produced 2 witnesses.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove that the tainted currency notes were received by the appellant as illegal gratification. On the other hand, learned counsel supported the judgment of the learned trial Court.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the receipt by and recovery of the tainted currency notes from the appellant having been admitted, the material question for determination is whether the same were accepted as illegal gratification or not. Since the Magistrate and the Inspector had not heard talk between the complainant and the appellant which preceded the passing on of the tainted currency notes, therefore, the statement of the complainant alone remains in field, upon which I am not inclined to place implicit reliance. Immediately after occurrence the appellant took the plea that the money was received in connection with A the purchase of firewood and he stuck to it when he was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. In the circumstances of the case, the reasonable possibility of the correctness of his plea cannot be excluded. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts.

7. For what has been stated above, the appeal is accepted. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. S. G. D.?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed.