1985 P Cr (PLP)

M.N. Javed for the State. Date of hearing: 3rd February, 1979. This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Special Judge (Central), Lahore, dated 10‑11‑1976, whereby Hakim Ali appellant was convicted under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.500 or in default in payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.

2. Hakim Ali appellant was posted as Bill Distributor, Electricity WAPDA, Saidpur Sub‑division, Samanabad, Lahore, in the month of March, 1975. Muhammad Siddiq (P.W.1) owned a saw machine. His normal electricity bill was Rs.100 to 125 which he had been paying regularly. In the month of April, he received an electricity bill of Rs.55,

000. He contacted the appellant and inquired from latter as to how he had been billed for such huge amount. The appellant advised him to submit an application in the office of S. D.O. Electricity. The complainant submitted the application but he again received electricity bill of Rs.57,000 in the month of May. He again contacted the appellant who demanded Rs.100 as illegal gratification. The appellant agreed to receive the said amount from the complainant at Thokar Niaz Beg where the complainant resided and had a saw machine. The complainant did not want to pass on the illegal gratification. He informed Muhammad Aslam, Deputy Director, F.I.A. The Deputy Director recorded the statement of Muhammad Siddiq complainant and on the basis of said statement, formal F.I,R. Exh.P.W.6/1 was recorded on 16‑5‑1975. On the application of the police, Mr. Nasarullah Khan, Magistrate (P.W.5) was deputed to supervise the raid. The raid was conducted on 19‑3‑1975. The complainant produced two currency notes before the Magistrate who returned the same to the former after taking down their serial numbers. The complainant was directed to pass on the illegal gratification to the appellant within the hearing and sight of the raiding party. The raiding party reached the saw machine of the complainant at about 12‑25 p.m. The Magistrate was present in the room where meter was installed. The complainant, his father and Ghulam Rasool, Inspector were present outside. In the meantime, a person came on bicycle who addressed the complainant that he would get his, previous electricity bill corrected by tomorrow or day after tomorrow and that the promised amount of Rs.100 be given to him and the job would be done only if the amount was paid. The complainant told the appellant that again a bill in thousands might not be issued as it was the case previously and in that way Rs.100 would be wasted whereupon the appellant gave assurance and said that he was responsible and in case his job was not done, his amount would be returned. Thereafter, the complainant handed over Rs.100 to the appellant within the view of the Magistrate and the Inspector who after holding the amount in his right hand gave assurance to the complainant for the second time and told him that he shall not have to worry. The Inspector and the Magistrate introduced themselves to the appellant and recovered the currency notes from the appellant. The numbers of these currency notes tallied with the numbers which the Magistrate had already noted down. The Magistrate recorded the raid report. He also recorded the statement of the appellant Exh. P.W.5/3. The appellant stated before the raiding Magistrate that the complainant had been coming to him for one month for the correction of his bill and he informed the complainant that he could not do it. The complainant again met him at about 10‑15 a.m. and inquired if his bill had been corrected and he replied that it had not been done so far whereupon the complainant told him that he had paid Rs.40 to Ijaz Cheema through a junior clerk for the job. He further stated that the complainant told him to get the remaining amount of Rs.40 from him at 1‑00 p.m. for said Cheema, and on reaching the place he inquired from the complainant about the amount which was to be paid to Cheema whereupon the complainant gave him two notes. He thought that one note was of the denomination of Rs.50 but on recovery it transpired that there were two notes of the denomination of Rs.50 each. Recovery memo. Exh.P.W.4/1 in respect of the currency notes was prepared. The person of the accused was searched and certain articles recovered, which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.W.4/2. The bicycle of the appellant was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.W.4/3. The Magistrate handed over the raid report, the other documents and the currency notes to the police for further action. The appellant was challaned after investigation.

3. The prosecution examined six witnesses in order to prove the case. Muhammad Siddiq (P.W.1). Ghulam Rasool, Inspector (P.W.4) and Nasarullah Khan, Magistrate (P.W.5) were the material witnesses. Rest were the formal witnesses. The above‑mentioned three witnesses fully supported the prosecution case.

4. The appellant was examined under section 342 Cr.P.C. who denied the prosecution allegation and gave the following detailed statement: ‑ "About 2/3 months before the raid I sold timber to the complainant for a price of Rs.200. He paid me Rs.100 and promised to pay the remaining amount after some time. I approached him on many occasions for the payment of my money but the complainant put me off on different pretexts. On the day of raid the complainant visited my office and I demanded the money which he owed me. He asked me to come to his Saw Machine where he would make the payment. At about 12‑30 p.m. I visited his factory and he was not there. His father told me that the complainant had not yet come and that he (the complainant) would make the payment because he had purchased timber from me. About an hour later Rafiq the brother of the complainant met me and told me that his brother had reached Saw Machine and that I should get my money from him. I went to the Saw Machine. I asked him to give my money to me whereupon the complainant handed over two currency notes of the denomination of Rs.50 each. I innocently received the said amount and the Magistrate hauled me up who was standing nearby. The complainant has falsely implicated me in this case because I used to demand the return of my money. I had many times quarrelled with him over the said money." When asked if he wanted to say any thing else, he came out with the following answer:‑ "I did not have any concern with the correction of the bill. I had never demanded any illegal gratification from the complainant. I was not in a position to demand or accept any illegal gratification from him." The appellant produced Inayat Hussain and Muhammad Ashiq in his defence who stated that before the raid, a quarrel had taken place between the appellant and Siddiq complainant as the appellant had demanded Rs.100 which the complainant had not paid.

5. It was a case in which not only the Magistrate and Police Inspector had actually seen the passing of the illegal gratification, but they had A heard the entire conversation which took place between the appellant and the complainant when the former demanded and received the illegal gratification. During his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied to have made statement before the Magistrate soon) after the raid. His plea was that the Magistrate had obtained his, signatures under pressure. I do not find any substance in his accusation. The Magistrate was a responsible Officer and disinterested person. He B had no motive to obtain the statement of the appellant under pressure. The pleas of the appellant, which he took up soon after the raid and at the time of his trial are not consistent. Altogether a different plea had been taken up, by the appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Not a single question had been put to the complainant that the complainant had purchased wood from the appellant worth Rs.200 and out of said amount, only half had been paid and the other half remained to be paid and a quarrel had taken place over the payment of the balance. The plea of the appellant cannot be considered even for a moment. The case against the appellant stood proved to the hilt and he was rightly convicted by the learned Special Judge. I see no force in this appeal and dismiss it. He shall surrender to his bond. H.A. Appeal dismissed.