Trap proceedings

2014 YLR 1385 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 497(2)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act, criminal misconductBail, grant ofFurther inquiryTrap proceedingsPublic servant (accused) caught by members of a raiding party while taking a bribe/illegal gratificationConversation between accused and complainant at the time of payment of bribe moneyScopeAccused an old-aged diabetic patient

Trapping party/Magistrate did not hear conversation between accused and complainant when alleged illegal gratification was settled and agreed to be paid

F.I.R. was lodged on 3-9-2013, whereas the incident was alleged to have taken place on 4-9-2013

Accused was a diabetic patient of old age as such there was no apprehension of tampering with prosecution evidence

Investigation of case was complete and challan had already been submitted before Trial Court

Case required further probe into guilt of accused

Accused was granted bail accordingly.

2013 PCrLJ 1051 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 497(2)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act, criminal misconductBail, grant ofFurther inquiryTrap proceedingsMembers of raiding party not seeing or hearing the accused at the time of payment of bribeEffect

Allegation against accused (public servant) was that he demanded illegal gratification from the complainant, and after negotiations, part payment was made to accused, while remaining amount was to be paid to him at a later date

Members of trap party did not hear the conversation between the accused and the complainant party at the time when alleged illegal gratification was settled, part payment was made, and payment of remaining amount was agreed upon

Although part payment made by complainant was recovered from the accused during the raid, however it was yet to be determined whether it was the part payment of illegal gratification allegedly settled between the parties

Neither did the members of raiding party see the accused while receiving the bribe amount nor did they hear the conversation between the accused and complainant party

Offence under S.161, P.P.C. did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.

Case was one of further inquiry

Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.

2013 PCrLJ 1051 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 497(2)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)BailTrap proceedingsPublic servant (accused)caught by members of a raiding party while taking a bribe/illegal gratificationConversation between accused and complainant at the time of payment of bribe moneyScope

Where a public servant was charged for receiving a bribe, not only the payment of bribe money was to be seen but conversation between the parties had to be heard also by the members of the raiding party so as to eliminate chances of involvement of innocent persons.

2013 MLD 907 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 5(2)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act, criminal misconductAppreciation of evidenceTrap proceedingsNon-marking of moneyNon-association of private witnesses during recovery proceedingsEffect

Accused, who was a peon in a Government office, allegedly demanded bribe from local people for issuance of National Identity Cards (NICs)

Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) officials arranged trap proceedings and caught accused red-handed while accepting bribe and also recovered tainted money from him

Trial Court convicted and sentenced accused under S. 161, P.P.C. read with S. 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947

Validity

Material witness, who was allegedly deputed to issue National Identity Card (NIC) forms had not been examined and was given up due to unknown reasons

Private mashir was not put in the witness box and admittedly no other private witness acted as marginal witness of mashirnama of recovery

Provisions of S. 103, Cr.P.C. were violated by investigation officer, who admitted that private persons were available at the place of raid

Tainted money allegedly recovered from accused was neither marked nor sealed

Accused was not competent to receive and issue National Identity Cards (NICs), therefore, it appeared that he had been involved in the present case to save the real culprits

Raiding party, during trap proceedings should have heard the conversation which took place between the accused and the person who allegedly gave him bribe and should have also seen the passing over of tainted money

Contradictions existed with regard to recovery and sealing of tainted money and also with regard to marking signs on the same

Prosecution version was without corroboration, which adversely affected the credibility of testimony of prosecution witnesses

Evidence on record fell short of proving the charge against accused

Appeal was allowed, conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court were set aside and accused was acquitted of the charge.