1998 PLP 586 (SCMR)

Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 12th March, 1995. MAMOON' KAZI, J.‑‑‑The petitioner was found guilty of commission of offence under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, by the learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Gujranwala and convicted accordingly. He was sentenced to three months' R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.500 or in default to undego further R.I.for one month. The petitioner filed his appeal against the said conviction and sentence before the Lahore High Court but the same was vide judgment dated 8-11-1993.

2. According to the case of the prosecution, complainant Muhammad Afzal (P. W.1) had requested the petitioner for issuing a copy of Fard Malqiat of his land situated in village Baduki Gusian for which the petitioner had demander a bribe for Rs.100 The matter was reported by the complainant to the Anti -Corruption Department vide F.I.R. (Exh.P.A.). Thereafter, M.M. Siddiq, Circle Officer, Anti‑Corruption, Gujranwala, (P.W.2) got a raid party constituted from A.D.C. (G), Gujranwala.

3. On 23‑12‑1984, at about 1.00 p.m. the raiding party which was headed by Sohail Basit, Magistrate, Gujranwala (P.W.3) went to the petitioner's Dera in Gakhar Town and tainted money consisting of currency note of Rs.100 (Exh.P.1), bearing the initials of the Magistrate was subsequently recovered from the possession of the petitioner, who on seeing the Magistrate had thrown it on the ground after pulling out the same from his waist‑coat pocket. The note was picked up and seized by Muhammad Siddiq (P.W.2) vide recovery memo. (Exh.P.C.). The Magistrate then recorded the petitioner's statement (Exh.P.E.), wherein it had .been alleged that money had been thrust into his pocket by complainant Mufkmmad Afzal, after the former had been called from the room of chobara into the courtyard. It was further stated by the petitioner that the complainant was not known to him previously. After recording of such statement by the Magistrate the petitioner was handed over to Circle Inspector, Anti Corruption vide his order (Exh.P.J.). The Circle Inspector, also seized copy of Jamabandi (Exh.P.F.), which had been prepared by the petitioner and for which the bribe had been demanded.

4. The prosecution examined three witnesses against the petitioner, namely, complainant Muhammad Afzal (P.W.1), Muhammad Siddiq, Circle Inspector, Anti‑Corruption, Establishment Gujranwala (P.W.2) and Sohail Basit, Magistrate (P.W.3) all of whom supported the prosecution case.

5. Although the petitioner had denied the incriminating circumstances established by the prosecution, and alleged his false implication into the case but the recovery of the tainted money being admitted by him which was further supported by the evidence of the said witnesses, the learned trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the said offence, and convicted him accordingly. The evidence led by the prosecution was also found sufficient by the learned Judge of the High Court to sustain the conviction of the petitioner. However, in view, of his old age and failing health his sentence of imprisonment was reduced to that already undergone by him and his sentence of the fine was reduced from Rs.500 to

200. The punishment in default of the payment of fine was also reduced from one month to 15 days

6. Mr. Ehsanullah Khan Lilla, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that contradictory statements were given by the prosecution witnesses and that passing of the bribe money had not been witnessed by the raiding party, neither conversation between the complainant and the petitioner had been heard by it. But none of the arguments appear to be of any substance. Evidentially, the complainant or the other prosecution witnesses did not have any motive to implicate the petitioner falsely in the case. The raid was conducted by Sohail Basit (P.W.3) who was a Magistrate and in whose presence the tainted money was taken out by the petitioner from his pocket and thrown on the ground. Further, even copy of Jamabandi which had been prepared by the petitioner was, subsequently, seized by the Circle Inspector and produced in evidence. The statement made by the petitioner before the Magistrate that the money had been thrust into his waist‑coat pocket by the complainant was, therefore, not believable in such circumstances. Although the petitioner had alleged enmity with complainant Muhammad Afzal but such allegation was discarded both by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court in view of the clear prosecution evidence and in absence of proof to sustain such allegation. The mere fact that conversation between complainant and the petitioner was not heard by the witnesses or that the tainted money did not pass in their presence, therefore, would be of little consequence in view of the other evidence led by the prosecution in the case.

7. In view of such circumstances, we are not pursuaded to grant leave to appeal to the petitioner: Leave is, therefore, refused. N.H.Q./U‑70/S Leave refused.