P L D 1992 Supreme Court 254 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.

The petitioner has sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence for offence of bribery. It was a Magisterial raid case. The petitioner was caught almost red handed. The tainted money was recovered from him. The frivolous plea that the petitioner had received Rs90 as return of loan has not been accepted by either of the two Courts below. There is practically no point advanced by the learned counsel. However, he cited Muhammad Fazlul Karim v. The State and another PLD 1964 SC 792 and contended that the prosecution could not succeed on account of discrepancies in the plea or stand taken or explanations offered by the accused regarding the recovery of the tainted money from him. He also contended that if the complainant would have been searched there and then the ten rupee note which was alleged to have been returned by the petitioner to him would have been recovered. It was not beyond a serious possibility that when confronted with such a situation the petitioner, in support of the aforestated plea, would have clutched at any other ten rupee note which would have been recovered from the complainant at the time of raid. And even if there was only such note with the complainant the accused would have asserted his claim over it. The Courts below have rightly assessed the evidence and the witnesses including the Magistrate have rightly been believed. It is also not necessary in such like matters to look for direct evidence of criminal conversation between the accused and the decoy witness; provided that the Magistrate who supervises the raid is satisfied that he has not been cheated--neither by the complainant/decoy witness nor by the accused. In this case the Magistrate who conducted the raid was in no doubt about the correctness of the prosecution case nor was he in any doubt about the reality which had taken place and which was witnessed by him. The case cited by the learned counsel also is not of any help to the petitioner. It was a petition against acquittal in which reasoning on which acquital was based was not disturbed. It is well known that the standard and mode of appreciation of evidence in cases where acquittal is sought to be set aside is different than the appreciation in those cases where conviction is sought to be set aside. In the light of the foregoing discussion there is no force in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. The sentence of the petitioner was suspended by order dated 17-12-1991 and he was allowed bail on furnishing of bail and surety bonds. As a result of the dismissal of the petition for leave to appeal the suspension/bail order is recalled and bail/surety bonds are cancelled. M.B.A./M-1608/S Petition dismissed.