1985 P Cr (PLP)

S.D. Qureshi for the State. Date of hearing: 2nd July, 1985. This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Lahore whereby he on 15‑4‑1985 convicted Muhammad Ayub appellant under section 161, P.P.C read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to three months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 in default thereof one month R.I. 2. The appellant was a Patwari. The charge against him was that he demanded and accepted Rs.200 as illegal gratification from Ghulam Rasul P.W. he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. To prove its case prosecution examined five witnesses. Ghulam Rasul P.W.4 appeared to prove demand as well as acceptance of Rs.200 by the appellant from the complainant as illegal gratification. Fayyaz Ahmad Khan Magistrate P.W.1 Malik Muhammad Aslam Inspector ACE, P.W.2 were produced to prove the acceptance by and the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the appellant. They supported the allegations. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature. 4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied all incriminating circumstances. In defence he produced four witnesses. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that as far the acceptance of the tainted currency notes by the appellant from the complainant and the nature of transaction, the prosecution case suffers from infirmities such as material contradictions. On the other hand the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of trial Court. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. As far the passing on of tainted money and conversation I find that the prosecution evidence suffers from material contradictions in the statements of complainant and Magistrate. The Magistrate claims to have seen the accused receiving money and also heard the talk between them while sitting in adjoining room, whereas Ghulam Rasul complainant has clearly stated that there was a door between the room in which the raiding party was waiting and the room in Which the money was given to the appellant and that there was curtains in front of the door. To my mind these contradictions cannot be termed as minor inasmuch as the contradictions render the acceptance of bribe by the appellant highly doubtful. In order to give an accused person benefit of doubt it is not necessary that there should be numerous infirmities if there is one which creates reasonable doubt in a reasonable mind that would be sufficient. For all these reasons, I am of the view that prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant is acquitted of the charge. S.G.D. Appeal allowed.