1986 P Cr (PLP)

Saleem Shad for State. Date of hearing: 8th February, 1986. This Criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge (Central) Lahore, whereby he on 30‑2‑1985, convicted Muhammad Ilyas appellant under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,

000. In default thereof one month R.I.

2. The appellant was a Lineman. The charge against him was that he demanded and accepted Rs.250 as illegal gratification from Maqsood Ahmad complainant P.W.5. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case, prosecution examined five witnesses. Maqsood Ahmad P.W.5 appeared to prove demand as well as acceptance of Rs.250 as illegal gratification by the appellant. Muhammad Safdar Qureshi Magistrate P.W.1 and Zulfiqar Ali, Inspector Anti‑‑Corruption P.W. 4 have been produced to prove the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the appellant. The rest of the evidence is more or less of formal nature. The aforesaid witnesses have supported the prosecution case.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P. C. the appellant while admitting the recovery of tainted currency notes from him has explained that the money was given to him by the appellant for the purchase of meter. In defence Maqbool Ahmad was produced as D.W.1.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the tainted currency notes were received by the appellant as illegal gratification and as such he could not have been convicted. Conversely the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the recovery of Rs.250 of tainted currency notes is not only proved but also an admitted fact and as such the real question for consideration is as to whether the money was received by the appellant as illegal gratification. I find that the Magistrate and Inspector had not heard any conversation between the appellant and the complainant before tainted currency notes changed hands, therefore, the statement of Maqsood Ahmad complainant alone remains in field. He being a decoy witness no implicit reliance can be placed on his statement and rule of prudence requires independent corroboration which I do not see in the case in hand. I am convinced that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the tainted currency were received by the appellant as illegal gratification and as such reasonable possibility of the plea of the appellant being true, cannot be excluded.

7. For what has been said above, while giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charge. S. G. D. Acquittal ordered.