1974 PLP 58 (SCMR)

It appears that the judgment in the gambling case was to be announced on the 30th of July 1970. On this date, both the accused were present in Court when the petitioner called one of them and demanded the bribe of Rs.100. The amount was finally settled at Rs.75. When the bribe‑giver was taken to the room of the Magistrate, he learnt that the case had been adjourned to the 10th of August 1970, The bribe‑giver, thereafter, consulted the Anti‑Corruption Police and a trap was arranged. On the 10 of August 1970, it is said, he entered the Court and gave the stipulated amount to the petitioner wrapped in a piece of paper, which the petitioner took and kept in the drawer of his table. At this stage, on getting the arranged signal, the raiding party came in and recovered the money from the drawer of the petitioner. The petitioner's defence was that he had never demanded any bribe, but the money was placed in his drawer when he was away from his seat in the room of the Magistrate. The Courts below have not accepted his version, but, relying on the prosecution evidence, convicted him as aforesaid. His appeal has also been dismissed by the High Court. He now seeks special leave to appeal and it is urged on his behalf that the conviction was bad because the prosecution had not proved‑ (i) that the petitioner was in a position to show any favour to the bribe- giver; (ii) that the money was placed in the drawer by the petitioner himself; and (iii) that the evidence of the bribe‑giver, who is in a position of an accomplice, was corroborated by any other independent evidence. The evidence of the bribe‑giver, Muhammad Ilyas, is to the effect that the petitioner told him that if they paid the illegal gratification, he will see that the case was disposed of in their favour. Thereafter, when the amount was settled, the petitioner went to the Chamber of the Magistrate, called the bribe‑givers there and they were then given to understand that their case had been adjourned to the 10th of August 1970. This evidence confirmed the bribe‑giver's belief that the petitioner was in a position to assist them. In cross‑examination it was actually suggested to this witness that he went to the Magistrate and talked to him in his room about the bribe. If this be so, then the fact that the bribe‑giver went into the room of the Magistrate is confirmed and that was by itself sufficient to raise the belief in the mind of the bribe‑giver that the petitioner was in a position to show him the favour he had promised. As regards the second point, the prosecution evidence abundantly establishes that the petitioner took the money and put it into the drawer. As regards the third point it is now well‑settled that an unwilling bribe. giver is not in the position of an accomplice and the slightest corroboration is sufficient to render his evidence reliable. In this case, the corroboration is furnished by the recovery of the marked notes from the drawer of the petitioner. The case against the petitioner was, therefore, established beyond any reasonable doubt and he has been rightly convicted. We see no ground for interference. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed,