Bribery

[Trap-case]-Accused according to pre-arranged plan made to come out in open and when so appearing tainted- money paid to him in presence of raiding party-Magistrate disclosing his identity, accused throwing away money and telling Magistrate that person giving money had told him same having been sent to him by his father for making some purchases-Numbers of Currency Notes tallying with numbers already noted down by Magistrate-Petitioner's explanation rejected by all Courts below and such Courts could not be said to have acted illegally in rejecting same-Evidence of bribe-giver corroborated by evidence of petitioner's conduct

No misreading or ignoring of material evidence pointed out in judgments of lower Courts-Case, held, not fit for grant of leave to appeal

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3).

S. 161 read with Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)Bribery - [Trap-case] - Accused caught red-handed by trap party but accused stating money found in his possession having been advanced to him by informer by way, of loan-No enmity existing between informer and accused and informer having recently constructed quarters genuinely in need of electric connection and such duty lying within scope of accused's duties-Guilt of accused on charge under S. 161, P. P. C. based on very cogent evidence produced by prosecution and defence plea rightly rejected-Charge under S. 161, having been proved beyond doubt, part of judgment of trial Court acquitting accused petitioner on charge under S. 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, held, irrelevant and in any case, does not whittle down weight of prosecution case.

S. 161 read with Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)-Bribery-[ Trap-case]-Burden of proof-Raid organised by Anti-Corruption establishment under supervision of area Magistrate and tainted money recovered from accused's possession-Tainted money having been recovered from accused, onus thereafter shifted upon him to explain how, he received it-Contention that approach of Courts below was wrong inasmuch as they discussed case from angle whether defence plea was or was not true whereas correct approach should have been if prosecution established its case, held, without force.- Onus on prosecution very light to establish guilt in circumstances, and remaining evidence on record sufficient to discharge such burden.

[Burden of proof].

S. 4-BriberyReasonable explanation about charge should be accepted-Presumption of guilt rebuttable by oral testimony of witnesses; by document produced by accused; by his statement under S. 342, Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) or by surrounding circumstances.