1986 P Cr (PLP)
JALAL DIN‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | JALAL DIN‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (JALAL DIN‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- C.A. Saeed for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 15th February, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ ‑‑‑-S. 161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)‑‑Illegal gratification‑‑Recovery of tainted currency notes from accused admitted fact but real question whether same were received by accused as illegal gratification requiring consideration‑‑Although Magistrate and Police Inspector had seen passing on of tainted currency notes yet they had not heard conversation between accused and complainant at time of passing on of money‑‑Only a decoy witness remaining in field against accused and prosecution failing to prove that money was passed to accused as illegal gratification‑‑Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)‑ Appreciation of evidence‑‑Decoy witness‑‑To place implicit reliance on statement of such witness, without any independent corroboration, held, was not in accordance with safe administration of justice. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
C.A. Saeed for Appellant. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 15th February, 1986. This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Senior Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Lahore, whereby he on 16‑11‑1977, convicted Jalal Din appellant under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to imprisonment till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs.1,000, in default thereof R.I. for 9 months.
2. The appellant was a Patwari. The charge against him was that he demanded Rs.100 and accepted Rs.30 as illegal gratification for the supply of the copy of Jamabamdi, from Naimat Ali P.W.4 He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case prosecution examined 4 witnesses. Naimat Ali P.W.4 appeared to prove demand as well as acceptance of Iis.30 as illegal gratification from him by the appellant. Lal Muhammad, Chohan, (Magistrate, P.W.1 and Malik Wahid Bakhsh, Inspector, A.C.E., P.W.2 were produced to prove the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the appellant. They supported the prosecution case. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. While admitting the recovery of the tainted currency notes from him, he explained that the same were given to him as a return of loan. In defence he produced 4 witnesses.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution has failed to prove that the tainted currency notes were received by the appellant as illegal gratification. No one has appeared for the State to oppose this appeal.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. Since the recovery of the tainted currency notes is not only a proved but also an admitted fact, therefore, the real question A for consideration is as to whether the tainted currency notes were received by the appellant as illegal gratification or not. I find that although the Magistrate and the Inspector had seen the passing on the tainted currency notes but they had not heard the conversation between the appellant and the complainant at the time of the passing on of the tainted currency notes. So far as the nature of transaction is concerned, statement of Naimat Ali P.W.4 alone remains in field. He being a decoy witness, it would not be in accordance with the safe administration of justice in criminal cases, to place implicit reliance on his statement without any independent corroboration thereof which I do not see in the case in hand. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the tainted currency notes were received by the appellant as illegal gratification.
7. For what has been said above, while giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charge. M. Y. H. ‑‑‑‑‑ Appeal allowed.