1. MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.-The ;case ;of the prosecution in brief is that one Abdul Hadi had taken the contract for carriage of cement from Karachi to the Store of the Buildings and Roads at Hyderabad On the 16th of June, 1976 his representative, namely, Munshi Ghulam Hussain delivered 16 trucks of the cement at the Store. But the petitioner and his Mistri Iqbal issued receipts only for 13 trucks and refused to do the same for the remaining three trucks unless they were paid a bribe of Rs. 450 in all.
2. The complainant Munshi Ghulam Hussain reported to the Circle Officer, Anti-Corruption as a result of which a trap was arranged under .The supervision of Mr. Sarang Ram Kela, Mukbtiaxkar and F, C.
3. N. Mu4shi Ghulam Hussain along with Mashir went to the Store where Clerk Ghulam Hussain who happened to be there stopped the mashir at the gate but allowed the complainant to go inside.
4. Munshi Ghulam Hussain then gave the marked notes and the threedelivery vouchers for signatures to Abdul Shakoor, petitioner who put them in the pocket of his pant. Just then he saw the Police party and the Magistrate approaching him. He accordingly took out the marked notes from his pocket and passed them on to Clerk Gliulam Hussain who was standing by with instructions to disappear with the money. He was, however, chased by the Magistrate and the Anti-Corruption Police. He was eventually caught and the marked tainted money was recovered from his pocket.
5. The three truck delivery vouchers were also recovered from the pocket of Abdul Shakoor, petitioner.
6. After obtaining the necessary sanction the police sent ' up Abdul Shakoor, petitioner, Clerk Ghulam Hussain and Mistri Iqbal to stand trial for the offence under section 161, P. P. C. Read with section 5(2) of Act II of 1947 for accepting bribe of Rs. 450 from Munshi Ghulam Hussain. The learned Special Judge acquitted Clerk Ghulam Hussain but convicted the petitioner as well as lqbal Mistri on the 27th of February, 1974. The two convicts appealed to the erstwhile High Court of Sind & Baluchistan at Karachi. A learned Judge of the High Court accepted appeal of lqbal Mistri co- accused and acquitted him but maintained the conviction of the petitioner and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500.
7. In these circumstances the petitioner has filed this petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court up--holding his conviction and sentence.
8. Clerk Ghulam Hussain was acquitted by the trial Court as he had nothing to do with the receipt of the bribe. The only part assigned to him was that the petitioner, on seeing the Magistrate and the Police party approaching, took out the tainted note from his own pocket and had passed them on to Clerk Ghulam Hussain, he was chased and was eventually caught with the marked currency notes of Rs, 450. But there was nothing to prove that he was a party to the receipt of the bribe as such from the complainant. In so far as Mistri Iqbal was concerned, the only evidence against him was of Munshi Ghulam Hussain to the effect that he had also demanded the bribe from him. But the High Court in the absence of any other independent and reliable evidence allowed the benefit of doubt to him. However against Abdul Shakoor, petitioner the two Courts relied on the independent evidence of Mr. Sarang Ram Kela, Magistrate to the effect that he actually saw the petitioner at the gate of the Store and the complainant Ghulam Hussain giving money and the receipt vouchers which he put in his own pocket, In the opinion of the two Courts, there was a reason to doubt the evidence of Magistrate who was an independent witness. We therefore, find no force in the contention advanced before us by the learned counsel to the effect that the High Court had erred in basing his conviction on the same evidence which was disbelieved in respect of the other two accused. The tainted money was actually asked by the petitioner and on seeing the police and the Magistrate approaching passed on the same to Clerk Ghulam Hussain who was chased and caught with the money recovered from his pocket. The three truck delivery vouohers were recovered from the pocket of the petitioner thus lending support to the prosecution version.
9. In the circumstances the High Court was justified in observing that the burden lay on the petitioner to explain his possession of the three receipt vouchers and the money first accepted by him. The defence relied upon the report Exh. 35 made by the petitioner to the Executive Engineer to the effect that 16 trucks loads of cement were delivered by the complainant at the store on the 16th June, 1967 and that only 5 trucks loads of cement had been stacked inside the godown and the remaining 11 trucks loads of cement had been left outside in the open space. The Assistant Store Officer, therefore, directed the Overseer to pass the receipt for the same which had been stacked inside the covered godown only. But in this connection the High Court rightly observed that if the letter of the Assistant Stores Officer was to be believed that it did not explain as to why the receipt for 13 trucks loads was passed on instead of for 5 truck loads as ordered by the Assistant Stores Officer.
10. In these circumstances the High Court observed that there was no explanation for the acceptance of the three delivery vouchers by the petitioner at the time of the trap.
11. The learned counsel. Was unable to satisfy us that the judgment. Of the High Court was based on any misreading of the evidence or that it had violated any accepted principles of the appreciation of the evidence A in coming to the conclusion.
12. We, therefore, find that this is n f a fit case for our interference and the petition is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.