1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM,J.-The petitioner was convicted under section 161, P. P. C., read with section 5(2) of Act II of 1947 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default to further undergo R. I. For 2 months by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Central), Rawalpindi, by judgment dated 18th of January, 1980, for accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 300 from Muhammad Nawaz for showing favour to him in the matter of settling his account of petitioner.
2. On the relevant date, that is 9th of June, 1976, the petitioner was serving as Deputy Assistant in the Military Estate Office at Rawalpindi. Muhammad Nawaz approached him for settling the rent and for the payment of arrears of rent due to him in connection with the rent of his house which was reconstructed by the Military Estate Office and let out on rent at Rs. 400 per month. The bargain was struck at Rs. 300 Muhammad Nawaz, who was unwilling to pay this amount approached the F.
3. I. A., Rawalpindi ; and consequently, a case was registered against the petitioner on 9th of June, 1976. A trap was laid and Muhammad Nawaz accompanied by Muhammad Iqbal Cheema, a First Class Magistrate, and Muhammad Zakarya, A. S. I., went to his office and there Muhammad Nawaz told the petitioner that he had brought the money who then took out a paper from the file and back-dated it and gave it to Muhammad Nawaz. Muhammad Nawaz, thereupon, handed over the currency notes to him ; and as he put them in his pocket, the Magistrate disclosed his identity and seized the money. At this juncture, the Inspector of F. I. A. Also entered the office and witnessed the seizure of the money. Thereafter, the Magistrate recorded the statement of the com--plainant and arrested the petitioner.
4. At the trial, the prosecution examined Muhammad Iqbal Cheema, Ghulam Ali Inspector, Agha Riaz Ahmad, an Assistant Director and Muhammad Nawaz, in support of the prosecution case. In defence, the petitioner pleaded that there was a quarrel between him and Muhammad Nawaz over the submission of the inventory and the plan of the house without which the agreement could not be completed and no payment could be made.
5. The trial Court held that the testimony of Muhammad Nawaz was amply corroborated by that of Muhammad Iqbal Cheema and Malik Ghulam Ali. Accordingly, the prosecution case stood established both on the point of demand of the bribe and the seizure of the currency notes.
6. Additionally, the trial Court held that it was also apparent from the statement of the petitioner recorded under section 342, Cr. P. C. That he had been visiting the petitioner in his office in connection with the recovery of the arrears of rent and this fact too support to the prosecution case in regard to the making of the demand. The trial Court rejected the defence plea that there was an altercation between the petitioner and Muhammad Nawaz in this connection and he was falsely implicated as in its view his plea was without substance as an officer of the standing of the Magistrate would not concoct a false and fabricated version.
7. The petitioner filed an appeal in the Lahore High Court against his conviction which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 14th of April, 1980. The learned Single Judge appraised the evidence and held him guilty for accepting the bribe.
8. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal against this order, butt having examined the judgments of the Courts below we are satisfied that they have, for good and substantial reasons, accepted the ocular testimony of Muhammad Nawaz, Muhammad Iqbal Cheema and Ghulam Ali, Inspector. The petitioner has offered no explanation as to how he came to possess the currency notes and in its absence the mere setting up of an innocuous defence in regard to an alleged dispute was not sufficient to disbelieve the seizure of the currency notes.
9. It was contended that the sanction was not proper as in the case of the petitioner it was Central Government which could order his prosecution but such objection was not taken in the trial Court nor in the High Court and, therefore, we do not see any reason to entertain it at this stage as it was the prime duty of the petitioner to raise it in the trial Court for in that eventuality the error could have been rectified, if there was any.
10. In regard to sentence, it was contended that it was harsh and the High Court failed to express its opinion on it although an objection was taken in this behalf. We do not find any substance in this contention as the imprisonment of this duration is commensure with the nature of the offence committed and, accordingly, this objection also has no substance.
11. The petition has no substance and is dismissed.