' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.--- Through this jail petition, petitioner Karim Bux seeks leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 17-5-2004 passed by learned Single Judge of High Court of Sindh, Karachi whereby Criminal Appeal No,164 of 2000 filed by him was dismissed, the conviction and sentence under section 161, P.P.C. With section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, II of 1947 to imprisonment for six months and to pay Rs,5,000 as fine awarded by the trial Court was maintained.
3. (sic) Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of instant petition are that petitioner was posted as Head Constable in C.A. Hyderabad. On 29-2-1992 complainant Mst. Qamarun Nisa lodged F.I.R.
Stating therein that she was working in garments factory. On previous night at about 2400 hours 6/7 persons came in a police vehicle at her house and told that they belong to CIA and have come to search her house as gambling was reported there. All of them forcibly entered into the house and searched the entire house but could not find anything. On a query about male person namely, Zaheer Shah present in her house, she told that he was her cousin and have come from Punjab.
They alleged that complainant was leading immoral life and was running prostitution. Therefore, they apprehended complainant and her cousin and took them to CIA Centre and kept them in confinement for the whole day and in the morning the mother of the complainant requested Subedar Ghulam Mustafa to release her daughter as it would bring bad name to their family as they were respectable persons. Subedar Ghulam Mustafa demanded Rs,10,000 for the release of complainant and ultimately the amount was settled at Rs,5,000. The mother of the complainant paid Rs,1,000 and promised to pay Rs,4,000 on next day whereafter their signatures were obtained on plain paper and were released. The F.I.R. Was recorded by Inspector Malik Mulazim (P.W.8) who arranged Rs,4,000 comprising of four notes of Rs,1,000 denomination and gave the same to complainant in presence of Muhammad Shafi and Magistrate under Mashirnama. Thereafter; complainant was sent to her house. Inspector Malik Mulazim, Niaz Muhammad, the then City Mukhtiarkar and F.C.M. And Mashirs proceeded to the house of complainant situated on Hall Road waited for 2/3 hours. Meanwhile, complainant asked Subedar Ghulam Mustafa to collect the promised amount. The Inspector and Magistrate sat in one room and Mashir was directed to stand at a place from where he could see the petitioner and complainant. Petitioner Karim Bux arrived to the house. Of complainant and was paid tainted money, out of which he kept two thousand in his pocket and returned two thousand to complainant saying that she should be on friendly terms with the petitioner. On signal raid was conducted and petitioner was ap prehended and on his search an amount of Rs,2,480 including two tainted notes of Rs,1,000 denomination were recovered. The revolver and some bullets were also recovered from his possession.
4. After usual investigation petitioner was sent up to face trial before the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provl.), Hyderabad.
5. Prosecution in order to establish its case examined 8 witnesses in all.
6. Petitioner in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the case of prosecution and pleaded false implication. He neither opted to record statement on oath as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Nor led any evidence in his defence.
7. On conclusion of trial petitioner was convicted and sentenced as stated above.
8. We have heard Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, learned Advocateon-Record appearing on behalf of petitioner and Mr. Muhammad Sarwar Khan, learned Additional Advocate-General, Sindh at length and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
9. In this case prosecution has been able to bring on record the evidence of complainant Mst.
Qamarun Nisa (P.W.6), her mother Mst. Ruqay (P.W.7), Niaz Muhammad, F.C.M. (P.W.4) and Muhammad (P.W.1), Mashir of the case in whose presence tainted money amounting to Rs,4,000 was passed on to petitioner and the same was produced and exhibited in the Court. L. His statement before trial Court under section 342, Cr.P.C. Petitioner has not been able to bring on record any animosity for his false implication in this case. Since a lenient view has already been taken in sentencing the petitioner as such we do not find any reason to interfere with which is maintained.
10. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of force is dismissed and leave to appeal refused.