1990 PLP 10 (SCMR)

Date of hearing: 19th April, 1989. GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑This petition for special leave to appeal by Sanaullah Cheema is against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 13‑8‑1988 whereby his appeal was dismissed and his conviction and sentence of two years R.I. and fine of Rs:3,000 awarded by the Special Judge, Anti -Corruption under section 161, P.P.C. read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was upheld. Muhammad Ashraf son of Rehmat Ali resident of Nai Abadi Tarkhanwala Police Station, Naushehra Virkan moved an application to the C.O./A.C.E., Gujranwala that the petitioner Amanullah A.S.‑I. had locked the premises of his brother Khan Muhammad where he had stored cement. The petitioner was contacted. He promises to unlock the premises and not to register a case for adultering the cement if he was paid Rs.10,

000. The bargain was struck at Rs.7,

000. It is alleged that this amount was duly paid to Sanaullah petitioner. In spite of that he did not keep up the promise and registered a case against Khan Muhammad. Khan Muhammad applied for pre‑arrest bail. He was allowed interim bail. At the bail stage, the petitioner was approached not to oppose the same. He demanded Rs.5,000 to do the needful. This time Muhammad Ashraf moved the Anti‑Corruption Authorities reporting about the demand for illegal gratification by the petitioner. Raiding party was organized. Currency notes were initialed by the Magistrate. All essential legal formalities were complied with by the Magistrate incharge of the Raiding Party. On 13‑7‑1985 Abdul Basit Sohal, M.I.C., Gujranwala conducted the raid in the premises of Sessions Court. When the Magistrate disclosed his identity the petitioner who had accepted the currency notes threw them on the ground. Those were picked up by the C.O./A.C.E. Gujranwala Mian Muhammad Siddique and taken into possession vide memo. Ex.P.C. On comparison the currency, notes were found to be the same which had been initialled, before passing it to the petitioner. After the recovery, statement of the petitioner was, recorded and then a case was registered. He was accordingly tried by the Special Judge, Anti- Corruption and convicted and sentenced as referred to before. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition submitted that the recovery was doubtful. It was not taken into possession from the person of the petitioner. The money was picked up from the ground. Anybody could throw the same and plant it to the petitioner. It was further submitted that nobody heard the conversation which took place between the petitioner and the complainant. These submissions have no force nor are these good grounds to grant leave to appeal because the judgment of the High Court is in accordance with law and the dictum laid down by this Court in the case of Ahmad Bakhsh v. State 1980SCMR

3. Dismissed. M.A.K./S‑319/S Petition dismissed.