1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J. -This appeal through special leave is direct--ed against judgment dated 5-4-1977 of the Lahore High Court in a criminal appeal; whereby the conviction and sentence of both the appellants for offences under section 161, P. P. C. And section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was upheld.
2. Inayat Masih and Abdul Rauf appellants were posted as an A. S. I. And a Constable, respectively at Police Station, Naulakha, Lahore, in May 1977, when they illegally detained Majha, P. W., the husband of Mst. Banso P. W. (complainant). It was agreed between Inayat Masih appellant and Mst. Banso, P.
3. W. That if she paid Rs. 100 directly to him or through Abdul Rauf, Majha would be released. She made a complaint in this behalf. A bribery raid was arranged. Bashir Ahmad P. W., a Magistrate, supervised it. Abdul Ghani and Inayat Khan, Inspectors of Police, were amongst the raid party.
4. At the appointed time and place at the Police Station Mst. Banso com--plainant, passed on Rs. 100 in signed currency notes to Abdul Rauf appellant, as was earlier arranged between her and the accused. It was seen by the Magistrate himself ; who went forward, introduced himself to Abdul Rauf, who initially resisted the handing over of the currency notes to the Magistrate, but was ultimately forced to do so. He also tried to resist the attempt of the raid party to take him to the office of the Director, Anti-Corruption, but did not succeed. At the trial all this was led in evidence through the afore--mentioned P. Ws.
5. The defence plea of Inayat Masih was that Majha P. Ws. Owed him Rs. 200 and on his failure to return the money he was scolded by the appel--lant ; therefore, Majha falsely implicated him. He examined two witnesses in defence. Abdul Rauf appellant also denied the charge and stated that Mst. Banso attempted to give him Rs. 100 for handing over to Inayat Masih, A. S. I., but he refused to oblige her. She attempted to force the money in his hands, but the currency notes fell on the ground, from where the Inspector of Police picked them up. He also examined two witnesses in defence.
6. Both the learned Courts below relied on the depositions of the P.Ws. And found the appellants guilty under section 161, P. P. C. And section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947: They were awarded sentence of one year's R. I. And fine of Rs. 1,000 each, in default whereof to suffer three month's R. I. Each.
7. Leave to appeal was granted to consider the argument that on the evi--dence produced at the trial, Inayat Masih could not be held responsible for receipt of the money by Abdul Rauf and further that the plea of denial and counter defence version needed consideration.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Magistrate who supervised the raid was annoyed with Abdul Rauf. Appellant because of his above-narrated conduct at the time of raid, therefore, he should not have been believed in so far as his deposition related to the conduct of Abdul Rauf at the time of the alleged receipt of the currency notes is concerned that Abdul Rauf's plea regarding attempt of Mst. Banso P. W. To hand over the money to him, despite his resistance, for onward handing it over to Inayat Masih should have been believed ; that even if it be believed that Abdul Rauf appellant accepted the amount as illegal gratification, no statement was made by Mst. Banso at the time of raid that she had passed the money as illegal gratification for Inayat Masih appellant, therefore, it should be treated as a case of no evidence against him ; and that there were discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses inter se, as also between the deposition of Mst. Banso and what he had stated in the F. I. R.
9. Mr. Bashir Ahmad, the learned Magistrate, who appeared as P. W. 4, deposed that Mst. Banso, P. W.
10. Was sent towards the Police Station while he himself stayed in a shop opposite Naulakha Bazar.
11. 'After a short while she returned Abdul Rauf was with her. Both of them were proceeding towards the Railway Station. The witness started following them. On her way, Magistrate heard Mst. Banso telling Rauf that "she has now brought the money and that her husband now be released." After making this statement she passed on the currency notes to Abdul Rauf appellant within the sight of the Magistrate, who then did not wait any further, went forward and introduced himself to Rauf appellant. He at that time was holding the notes in the fist of his right hand. Other members of the raiding. Party, who were asked to remain around, also reached. The Magistrate did not succeed in obtaining the currency notes from the appellant who had tightened his fist. It was in this situation that the "other members of the raiding party opened it and ten currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 10 were recovered." This resume does not show that the conduct of Abdul Rauf appellant were such that it would have annoyed the Magistrate to an extent of exeggerating the former's role in receiving the tainted money. If the learned Magistrate wanted to introduce falsehood, some damaging statement could have been attributed to the appellant at the time when he received the money. Similarly the subsequent conduct of Abdul Rauf in his refusal to accompany the raiding party, or in his refusal to record a statement there and then before the Magistrate cannot be taken advantage of by himself, so as to cast doubt on the credibility of the members of the raiding party.
12. If that were so, ever accused person in a case of raid like the present one would be justified I resisting the lawful process after the raid and then to accused the raiding party of having falsely implicated him. The argument raised by the learned counsel, in this behalf, has no merit and is repelled as misconceived.
13. The defence plea of Abdul Rauf no doubt, was that Mst. Banso wanted to hand over the tainted money to him for giving the same to Inayat Masih accused, but he refused to accept it and the money was picked up by a witness from the ground. The prosecution witnesses, including the Magistrate, who have no animus against Abdul Rauf, have given a totally different version, which bets been accepted by the learned Courts below. There is no reason even to suspect that they wanted to falsely implicate Abdul Rauf. Hi explanation that Mst. Banso wanted to falsely involve Inayat Masih also, a would be presently shown, is an afterthought. The story about the alleged loan obtained by Majha P. W. From Inayat Masih was not put to any of the concerned prosecution witnesses. After hearing the learned counsel we do not find any justification for interfering with the assessm ent of evidence against Abdul Rauf appellant by the learned Courts below. He was caught red-banded and has rightly been convicted.
14. The argument advanced by the learned counsel on behalf of Inaya Masih appellant, in effect, is that he was not directly involved in the raid as a culprit. He did not receive the money in presence of the witnesses., and because Mst. Banso P. W. Did not mention his name a the time of handing over of the money to Abdul Rauf, therefore, it should be treated as a case of no evidence against Inayat Masih. This is too wide a proposition to be accepted. If that were so, then in cases of bribery wherein different persons are involved, some as inter--mediary shareholders and the others as main accused, the acceptance of the bribe by the intermediary for the benefit of the. Main accused could no be treated as material in the case against the main accused. There a n ' law nor principle to support this proposition. In such like cases the important piece of evidence is furnished against the main accused by the persons who depose about the demand, and/or attempt to accept bribe by the main accused directly or through an intermediary, or about an agreement' by him in this behalf. The receipt of money by the intermediary for benefit of the main accused, or partly for himself and partly for the main accused, would furnish an additional piece of evidence against the main accused as also direct evidence against the intermediary. It would also operate as corroboratory factor in so far as the major element in the version of the person whey agrees to give the bribe and might be in the position o1: a complainant. There is no hard and fast rule as to what type of corroboration would be required for the evidence of such a person. It would depend upon the circumstances in each case. In the present case, the feat that Abdu Rauf had accepted the money during the raid witnessed by several person did furnish a corroboration to a substantial part of the; complainant's ca that Inayat Masih had instructed her to hand over the money to Abdul Rauf if he was not present in the Police Station. Thus, it, cannot be treated as case of no evidence against Inayat Masih. The main dispositions against him are of Mst. Bano and Majha P. W. Who gave the reason for approach to the A. S. I., the illegal detention of Majha, P. W. And the demand and agreement with regard to the illegal gratification. The corroboratory evidence is furnished by the other witnesses and the circumstances including the raid proceedings. The learned Courts below having accepted the depositions, in so far as they implicate Inayat Masih also, as truthful we fin no justification for interference in the matter of assessment of evidence.
15. The plea of Inayat Masih and his two witnesses that Majha, P. W. Was in need of money, therefore, he went to the defence witnesses to obtain loan, who themselves could not oblige him but were able to secure the same for him from Inayat Masih appellant, in too bizerre to be accepted. This supposition finds further strength from the fact that this story was absolutely an afterthought. We have gone through the statements of Majha and Mst. Banso. While no question at all was asked from Majha in this behalf, the suggestion made to Mst. Banso was that she wanted to implicate Inayat Masih on account of her family dispute, with him, because both the witness and the accused belonged to the Christian community. The defence plea of Inayat Masih has rightly been rejected.
16. The argument of the learned counsel with regard to the discrepancies in the prosecution evidence is also without any force. The discrepancies did not amount to such contradictions that any attention should be paid to them by this Court so as to reappraise the depositions of the witnesses.
17. Inayat Masih has also been rightly convicted.
18. There is no justification for interfering with thez.4mpugned judgment. This appeal accordingly is dismissed.