1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-The petitioner, who was at the relevant time a clerk in the office of the Mukhtiarkar, was convicted under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for demanding and accepting an illegal gratification of Rs. 5 for the issuance of a solvency certificate to the complainant, Abdur Rahman. On Abdur Rahman's complaint to the Sub-Inspector, Anti- Corruption Establishment, Jacobabad a trap was arranged and one marked currency note of Rs. 5 and two currency notes of rupee one each were made over to the complainant to be paid to the petitioner.
2. The marked currency notes were, after the payment of the illegal gratification, actually recovered by the Magistrate from the right hand of the petitioner along with other currency notes. The petitioner, on the query of the Magistrate, stated that he would give his statement afterwards, as he was not then feeling well. At the trial the petitioner denied the charge and stated that the marked currency notes pertained to a fine imposed on one, Ghous Bakhsh, and were paid to him by the said Ghous Bakhsh. This Ghous Bakhsh was also examined as a defence witness.
3. The Courts below had disbelieved the defence story and had accepted the prosecution case. The High Court has, while upholding his conviction, reduced his sentence of imprisonment, to the period of four days already suffered but imposed upon him a fine of Rs. 300, as the amount of bribe accepted was only a small amount. He was sentenced by the trial Court to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.
4. He now seeks special leave to appeal and it is contended on his behalf that the Courts blow had not considered the defence, particularly, since the defence story was not an improbable one.
5. Learned counsel appearing in support of the petition tried to explain, when asked as to how Ghous Bakhsh could manage to get hold of the marked currency note of rupees five, that the complainant presented this marked currency note to Ghous Bakhsh and asked him to give him one rupee notes in exchange and that was how Ghous Bakhsh gave this marked currency note of Rs. 5 to the petitioner in payment of the fine. This is an extremely ingenious explanation which can hardly be accepted. If indeed there was any truth in the defence that the marked currency note was made over to the petitioner in payment of a fine by another person, then the petitioner could have said so to the Magistrate and called Ghous Bakhsh immediately to support his story. The fact that this was not done shows that this defence has been thought of subsequently.
6. We think that the petitioner has been rightly convicted and treated with leniency by the High Court.
7. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.