Muhammad Azam appellant was convicted on 18th February, 1977, under section 161. P.P.C. Read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 by the learned Special Judge, Anti--- Corruption, Lahore-1, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500 or in default in payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.
Feeling aggrieved of the said judgment. Muhammad Azam preferred the present appeal against his conviction and sentence.
2. Muhammad Azam appellant was posted as Patwari Halqa Aura, within district Sialkot, in May, 1974. Maqsood Ahmad complainant (P. W. 2) was in need of copy of fard Jamabandi. On 16th May, 1974, he met the appellant and asked him to supply the said copy. The appellant demanded Rs. 120 as illegal gratification. The complainant paid him Rs. 20 and promised to pay the remaining amount. He informed Raja Muhammad Ayyub. Sub-Circle Officer, Anti-Corruption Establishment.
Sialkot, and made statement Exh. P Lon 18th May, 1974. On the application Exh. P. A. Submitted by Sub-Circle Officer, Mr. Khusro Pervaiz Malik Magistrate was deputed to supervise the raid. The Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant Exh: P B. The complainant gave one currency note of the denomination of Rs. 50 and five currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 10 each and the Magistrate noted down their serial numbers. The complainant was searched and nothing was found on his person. A raid was organized by the learned Magistrate. Raiding party comprised of Maqsood Ahmad complainant. Raja Muhammad Ayyub, S. C. O. And Sardar Muhammad constable. The Magistrate and Sardar Muhammad constable remained at a distance of five/six paces from the complainant. Raja Muhammad Ayyub, S. C. O. Was further away at a distance of twenty paces. The complainant entered the office of the appellant. The Magistrate took seat on a cot, which was lying in front of a shop near Patwarkhana. The Magistrate could see the appellant and the complainant. Within the view of the Magistrate the complainant gave currency notes to the Patwari one by one and took Fard Jamabandi from him. The appellant placed that money in a register. On receiving the signal, the Magistrate and the constable immediately entered the room. The appellant took out that money from the register and passed it on to another person, who was subsequently discovered as Muhammad Shafi. The later also placed the money on the register from where the Magistrate picked it up. The numbers of those notes were tallied with the numbers, which the Magistrate had already noted down Maqsood Ahmad complainant handed over the Fard. The Magistrate recorded the statements of Maqsood Ahmad Exh. P D. Sardar Muhammad constable and Raja Muhammad Ayyub, S. C. O. He also recorded the statement of Muhammad Azam appellant Exh. P E. After completing the raid report, he handed over the documents to the S. C. O. For further investigation. The appellant was challenged.
3. The prosecution examined Mr. Khusro Pervaiz Magistrate (P. W. 1), Maqsood Ahmad (P. W. 2) and Raja Muhammad Ayyub (P. W. 4) in order to prove its case. They fully supported the prosecu--tion case.
4. The appellant was examined under section 342, Cr. P. C. He admitted that he was posted as Patwari of Halqa Aura, district Sialkot in year 1972. He further admitted that Maqsood Ahmad complainant met him and asked for copy of Jamabandi. When asked if he deman--ded illegal gratification from the complainant, the appellant stated that he only demanded the prescribed fee. He denied to have received Rs. 20 earlier from the complainant. He further denied to have received Rs. 100 as illegal gratification on the day of raid. He admitted that he supplied copy of Jamabandi to the complainant on the day of raid, but denied to have received any amount from him. He explained that the complainant had met him a day earlier, and he told him to come on the following day and he supplied him copy on 18th May, 1974. He denied the other allegations levelled against him. He, however, admitted that currency notes P. 1 to P. 6 were lying in front of Muhammad Shafi, which were picked up by the Magistrate. He further admitted that he made statement Exh. P.
E. Before the Magistrate. He examined Abdur Rashid and Muhammad Sharif in his defence. Both the defence witnesses stated that Maqsood Ahmad complainant took the appellant under a tree. He was accompanied by two other persons, who entered Patwarkhana. Maqsood Ahmad and the appel--lant had a talk for ten/fifteen minutes and in the meantime, police came there and apprehended the appellant. According to the deface witnesses, nothing was recovered from the appellant.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant took me through the entire evidence. Maqsood Ahmad complainant had no grudge against the appellant. He had no motive to involve him falsely in the case. He wanted Fard Jamabandi and for that reason, he had met the appellant, who received Rs.
20 in the first instance and demanded another amount of Rs.
100. Maqsood Ahmad passed on the tainted currency notes to the appellant in the Parrvarkhana, which the appellant received within the view of the Magistrate. When Magistrate entered Patwarkhana, the appellant threw that money towards Muhammad Shafi, who in turn threw it on the register. The Magistrate picked up those currency notes. The Magistrate, who conducted the raid, was a responsible officer. I have no reason to disbelieve his statement. He clearly stated that while sitting on a cot in front of a shop he could very well see the complainant and the appellant. He further stated that when he entered the office of the appellant, the appellant threw those notes towards another person who threw the money on the register. The conduct of the appellant in throwing the money on seeing the Magistrate was a material circumstance against .Him. The appellant had supplied a copy of the jamabandi to the complainant after receiving the tainted currency notes. Raja Muhammad Ayyub had lent support to the prosecution version. The version given by Abdur Rashid and Muhammad Sharif was neither put to Maqsood Ahmad during cross-examination nor the appellant gave the version and the names of the defence witnesses in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr. P. C. The defence version was an afterthought and no reliance could be placed on the testimony of the defence witnesses. The evidence brought on the record clearly proved that the appellant received illegal gratification and had supplied the copy of jamabandi to the complainant. He was rightly convicted by the learned Special Judge. The case is pending against the appellant for the last nearly seven years. On account of inordinate delay in the disposal of the case, the sentence of the appellant is reduced to sentence of imprisonment already undergone and a fine of Rs. 2,000 or in default in payment of fine to suffer imprisonment as ordered by the learned Special Judge. With this modification in sentence, the appeal is dismissed.