1985 P Cr (PLP)

Rana Zahid Mahmood for the State. Date of hearing: 18th December, 1984. This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, Sargodha and Faisalabad Divisions with H.Qs. at Sargodha whereby he on 12‑3‑1984 convicted Muhammad Bukhsh appellant under section 161, P.P.C. and sentenced him to nine months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.2,000 in default thereof to further R.I. for four months.

2. The appellant was Patwari. The charge against him was that he demanded and accepted Rs.200 as illegal gratification from Sattar Bukhsh complainant. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined three witnesses. Sattar Bukhsh P.W.1 appeared to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification from him by the appellant. Muhammad Munir Lughari Magistrate and Falik Sher Chishti Circle Officer A.C.E. P.W.3 were produced to prove the recovery of tainted currency notes from him. They supported the prosecution case.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. He stated that at the time of raid, the complainant threw the tainted currency notes near him and went away. In defence he tendered copy of the judgment Exh. D.A.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution has failed to prove the acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the trial Court.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel with care. I find that the Magistrate and the Circle Officer neither saw the money changing hands nor did they hear any conversation between the appellant and the complainant at the time of raid; that the money was not recovered from the physical possession of the appellant and that when the Magistrate and the Circle Officer approached, the appellant on seeing them stood up and they found the tainted currency notes lying on the Charpai; that just after the occurrence, the appellant in his statement Exh. P. C. had stated that the complainant, of his own accord threw the currency notes near him and went out and that at the time of trial, he did not admit to have received the amount as illegal gratification. He stated that the complainant might have thrown the tainted currency notes near him. It is thus very much obvious that so far as the acceptance of illegal gratification is concerned, the statement of Sattar Bukhsh alone remaines in field. He being a decoy witness, it would be unsafe to place implicit reliance on his testimony. In the circumstances of the case, the possibility of the plea of the appellant raised by him just after the occurrence, being true, cannot be excluded. For what has been stated above, giving him the benefit of doubt, 10 the appellant is acquitted of the charge. M. Y. H. Appeal allowed.