1. CORNELIUS, J.-This appeal against a conviction under section 5 of the Prevention of. Corruption Act, 1947 is brought before the Court by one Abdul Rashid to whom special leave to appeal was given for the purpose of examining whether the courts below have drawn from the facts established, those inferences that legitimately followed in favour of the appellant. The case against him was a comparatively simple one. One Asif Ali to whom certain evacuee premises had been allotted under the description of "a room" found that when the "room" was opened it actually consisted of two rooms one behind the other. The previous occupant, sticking to the letter of the order of allotment, removed his goods to the back room leaving only the front room to be handed over to Asif Ali. This occurred at a formal delivery of possession which was carried out on the 24th July 1953, in the presence of the accused who was a Rehabilitation Inspector. Asif Ali's case was that immediately after when he protested regarding the back room, he was told that if he paid a bribe of Rs. 100 that also could be delivered to him. He reported the matter the following day to the Anti-Corruption Department, and a Magistrate Mr. K. M. Sadiq was nominated to accompany a party which was to trap the accused in the act of receiving the bribe. The senior officer of Police in charge of the affair, Sub-Inspector Bashiruddin, said that he produced Asif Ali before the Magistrate for the recording of his statement on the 27th July 1953 and that the Magistrate then recorded his statement, but the Magistrate himself had no recollection of this affair, and the corroborative story of Bashiruddin, which was supported by Asif Ali, that an attempt to reach the money to the accused on that day failed, because he was not found in his office, could not be established satisfactorily. The point is of importance, as the accused has led evidence in support of his own statement to show that on the 27th July 1957, Asif Ali pestering him to receive gratification for delivering the se and room to him and actually ran after him with the offer, when along with a Rehabilitation Officer, Kazim Ali and cert in other persons was proceeding in a tonga to deal with certain other evacuee property.
2. However, a statement of Asif Ali was recorded on the morning of 28th July 1953, and the trap party then proceeded to the office in which the accused worked. Asif Ali went by himself into the accused's room, and there, with no other witnesses present, the money was handed over to him.
3. The conduct of the accused as it appears from the evidence immediately after receiving the money has been described in the prosecution evidence, as well as in the statement of the accused and his supporting witnesses in almost identical terms. Holding the money in his hand, the accused stood up and so did Asif Ali, who had already made the agreed signal which was to follow the transfer of the money, and was anxiously waiting for the arrival of the Magistrate and his companions. The accused moved from his room into the adjoining room which was occupied by Rehabilitations Staff e.g. Clerks. The direction in which he was moving admittedly leads to the room of the Rehabilitation Officer, Kazim Ali. When he was inside the room occupied by the staff, he was stopped by a call from Asif Ali, and immediately after the Magistrate, K. M. Sadiq came up to him.
4. The Magistrate's evidence is clearly to the effect that the accused was holding the ten currency notes each for Rs. 10 in his hand openly, making no effort to conceal the money. Mr. Sadiq has also admitted that when he was stopped, the accused used words to the effect that he was taking the money as well as Asif Ali to the Rehabilitation Officer in order to report against Asif Ali. In support of this statement, there is the evidence of Kazim Ali, as a defence witness that on the previous day, at the time of the tongs incident, the accused had told him that he was being pestered by Asif Ali and that he had directed the accused that if Asif Ali appeared again, he should bring him before himself. A suggestion was made on behalf of the prosecution in the arguments before us that if this were true, the accused should have taken Asif Ali to his officer as soon as he appeared and need not have received the money first. To this, the very reasonable reply was made that before reporting Asif Ali to his superior officer for the serious offence of attempting to bribe him, i.e. The Inspector, the latter had to make sure that he was in possession of evidence to prove the intention of Asif Ali. He could not expect that when he appeared before the Rehabilitation Officer, Asif Ali would still continue to offer the bribe, but on the other hand, he could reasonably expect that Asif Ali would immediately deny the imputation, and in that case the position of the Inspector would be somewhat worse than before.
5. The question being as to the purpose for which the accused received the money, it is of crucial importance to the decision of the main question as to his guilt or innocence that his conduct immediately after the receipt of the money should be correctly evaluated The trial Court formed the opinion after lengthy examination of the evidence that the accused had failed to prove that he had received the money for a lawful purpose. The conclusion is expressed in the following words :- "There is no truth in the version put forward by the accused which is a story concocted from the beginning to the end. If there had been any truth in it the accused would never have failed to mention it before the investigating officer and got the truth of it verified during the investigation or have produced the witnesses whom he has produced in his defence in this Court, before his own Officers or before the higher Officers of the investigating authority. This story is an after thought introduced on legal advice simply to meet the prosecution case from technical grounds."
6. In the High Court, this view was upheld by a learned Single Judge who heard the appeal of Abdul Rashid, and observed that he had not been impressed by the defence evidence and had no hesitation in holding that it was untrue. Like the trial Court, the learned Judge in the High Court regarded the whole of the defence as "an after thought", and in proof thereof pointed out that none of the defence witnesses had been produced before the Police. Since, this circumstance has weighed so largely in determining the minds of the Courts below, we think it proper to point out that, at least in a case where the Police themselves have been associated with the commission of the crime for which they undertook a prosecu--tion later, the accused might be excused for the apprehension that he could not safely place his full defence and the witnesses in support, in the hands of the same officers. There must necessarily be a feeling, which might or might not be either reasonable or justified, that the Police are not entirely free from partisanship in the case.
7. Consequently, the safer course and one more conducive to the procurement of a fair decision in the case would be for the accused to reserve his defence and his evidence until the matter is placed before an impartial authority, which would be the Court.
8. To revert to the incidents of the morning of the 28th July 1953 in the Rehabilitation Office, it remains to mention a some--what extraordinary occurrence which took place while the Magistrate Mr. Sadiq was engaged in writing his report of the proceedings: The accused was then sitting at the Magistrate's table and had been told that he was in custody. Suddenly, he got up and leaping over a table made his way out of the room through a window. He returned to the same place with an elderly relative, after an interval which he says was 20 minutes, but the prosecution place it at an hour. The evidence as to his movements after leaving the room is conflicting, and requires some examination. A Head Constable Jan Muhammad who was with the party declared that he immediately went in pursuit of the accused, and followed him up a spiral stair-case so closely that he could touch the accused's heels with his hands. The accused ran up to a door on the third storey of the 'building and was given refuge there by a person who refused to allow the police to search his premises. On the other hand, Sub-Inspector Bashiruddin who was in charge of the party while admitting that the police party had visited the premises on the third storey, gave a totally different account as to the immediate escape. He said in plain terms that he himself and the others who went in pursuit of the accused lost sight of him as soon as he got out of the room. They made a search for him in the various office rooms, but failing to find him, they returned to the Magistrate. They made a search for him in the various office rooms, but failing to find him, they returned to the Magistrate. It was admitted however by the Magistrate that the direction which the accused took on leaving his room, led to the room of the Rehabilitation Officer and this admission gained significance from the fact, stated by the latter officer, Kazim Ali, that at about 8 a.m. The accused came running to his room, told him that there had been an incident and he was going to fetch a surety and asked him to make a request on his behalf to the Magistrate, presumably for time. Some time later, he received a telephone message from the accused that he was coming. He communicated these matters to the Magistrate, and the Magistrate himself in his evidence appears to admit that there were two conversations with the Rehabilitation Officer, in the second of which he was told about the telephone message. As to the first conversation, Mr. Sadiq could not recollect what passed but Kazim Ali had said that when he attempted to explain the position, the Magistrate told him that since the accused had bee arrested anything that Kazim Ali had to say should be said in Court. The accused when asked why he had escaped from custody explained that lie had simply gone away to inform a relative of his. It seems that he was prosecuted separately for this act.
9. In the High Court, the act of the accused in running away from the custody in which he was held by Mr. Sadiq was regarded as a strong circumstance against the defence lie had put forward. Tile trial Court also, regarded such conduct as a material circums--tance against the accused coming to the coIlclus1otl~ that the statement that he went to (lie Rehabilitation Officer was not true and that the allegation that he went to fetch a surety could not be accepted. When the entire evidence on the point is regarded as a whole, it seems to us that such a conclusion cannot easily be reached.
10. The Magistrate Mr. Sidiq had stated that when the accused reappeared, which was of his own accord, he said that "he got perplexed and had gone away to consult some one". The fact that lie returned with an elderly relation goes clearly to support his statement, and as to his being perplexed that would be a very natural condition to be found in the circumstances. The evidence of the Rehabilitation Officer finds support in the admissions made by Mr. Sadiq, and appears to us to be more worthy of reliance than the allegation of a hot pursuit up the spiral stair-case. We find ourselves unable to draw from the circumstance of the accused's departure from the Magistrate's table and his return with a person presumably a surety, after a moderate interval, any strong conclusions adverse to the defence put forward by tile accused regarding the offence of bribery.
11. The actual receipt of the money was preceded in this case by the events of the 27th July 1953, and was followed by the alleged escape of the accused from lawful custody. With regard to both these matters, the evidence for the prosecution is clearly not of a character to be accepted without question, and in both cases, the evidence for the defence provides an account of the, accused's conduct and an explanation for it which cannot be rejected out of hand, for lack of reasonableness.
12. Therefore, it is possible to approach the consideration of the inferences to be drawn-from the conduct of the accused person in receiving the money and in the few moments following that receipt which preceded his capture by the Magistrate, without reference to the preceding events of the 27th July 1953 or events relating to his disappearance from the Magistrate's table.
13. One question which has been asked in the judgment of the High Court is:--- "If the defence story be true then there is no reason why Asif Ali should approach the Anti- Corruption Department on the 25th July."
14. In this connection, it is to be noted that there appears to be to record of the statement made by Asif Ali to Ch. Bashiruddin, Sub-Inspector on the 25th July 1953. The first occasion on which his statement was recorded in writing appears to have been the 28th July 1953, at about 7 a.m. And it must be remembered that on the previous day, the defence alleged that Asif Ali had been pursuing the accused with an offer of a bribe. The accused's version being that his intention was to entrap Asif Ali, it is reasonable to suppose that he might on the 27th July have given Asif Ali the impression that lie would be willing to receive the money on the following day. But this need have no bearing upon the motive of Asif Ali in calling in the Anti-Corruption Depart--ment. It may well be that lie acted from a sense of grievance at having been given the possession of only a part of the premises which he believed had been allotted to him. The point might have been clarified if the Sub-Inspector Bashiruddin had taken down Asif Ali's statement when he first appeared, but on this point Bashiruddin's evidence is perfectly clear. He said:- "I did not record any statement of Asif Ali when he came to me on 25-7-53. No F. I. R. Is recorded in the Anticorruption Department. Therefore, I did not record F. I. R. Before producing the complainant before the Magistrate."
15. It is significant too that no detailed account of what Asif Ali told him has been given by the Sub- Inspector Bashiruddin. He merely said that the complainant met him on the 25th July 1953 and told him "the facts". The possibility is not excluded that the period between this meeting and the recording of Asif All's statement by Mr. Sadiq on the morning of 28th July 1953, was used for the purpose of preparing tile ground for a completed act of bribery to be committed by the accused.
16. The latter, fur his part, says that he allowed this preparation to proceed, since he himself intended to have Asif Ali caught. It may be some what difficult to believe the latter version, but a finding thereon can only be given on the basis of proof, and in itself, it is not a wholly impossible thing to find an official concerning himself to entrap a bribe-giver.
17. Eliminating this further element of doubt, there need be no difficulty in evaluating the effect of the accused's conduct immediately after he had taken the money. He made no attempt to put it in his pocket or bury it in the pages of a register or in the drawers of the table or in any other way which would indicate the normal reaction of a dishonest receiver of illegal gratification. Holding the notes in his lands openly and without any attempt to conceal them, he stepped out of his room into another room where a number of clerks was seated. If the money lead been received as a bribe it is difficult to conceive of the receiver, entering a room in which his own subordinate clerks were sitting at work, carrying the tainted money in his hands openly. It is admitted that the direction that he was following led to the room' of the Rehabilitation Officer. When he was stopped by the Magistrate he immediately said that he was taking the money as well as Asif Ali to the Rehabilitation Officer. On these facts, we consider that the inference that the accused was acting bona fide as he says, i.e. That he was taking the money and the bribe-giver to report the latter to his superior officer as a criminal, is at least as probable and accords at least as much that reason, as the alternative placed before the Court by the prosecution namely, that he had received the money as a bribe and that he intended) to appropriate it. To that, a modification was added in the argument, before us rig that he may have been taking tile money to the Rehabilitation Officer to be shared with tile latter. Such an intention is not outside the bounds of possibility, but there is nothing on the record or arising out of the circumstances of the case to indicate any such intention.
18. Moreover, we find it difficult to imagine that the bribe money to be shared between the inspector and the Officer would be taken openly, almost as if it was being flourished, through a room full of clerks working under these officers.
19. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the conclusion of, guilty is not the only, or even the most reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the proved facts and circumstances of the present case, and we therefore allow this appeal and acquit Abdul Rashid.