Muhammad Yamin, a Sub-Inspector of the C. I. A. Staff, Chuna Mandi. Lahore, was tried by the Senior Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial), Lahore, under section 161, P. P. C. Read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for demanding a sum of Rs. 10,000 from Muhammad Sadiq Khan, complainant, as bribe and receiving Rs. 6,000 on 16th March, 1975 at Green Hotel, Maclagan Road, Lahore and another sure of Rs. 4,000 on the date of the trap raid on 18th March, 1975. The learned trial Judge convicted Muhammad Yamin, under section 161, P. P. C.
Read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay fine of Rs. 50,000 or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months. The tainted G. C. Notes amounting to Rs. 4,000 were ordered to be paid back to Muhammad Sadiq Khan P. W. In due course.
2. The prosecution case is that Manzoor Ahmad Butt, a depot holder was in possession of foodgrain licence for the firm Mian 8c Company, G. T. Road, Baghbanpura, Lahore. About 7/8 days before the raid, the said Manzoor Ahmad Butt had allegedly sold 64 bags and 254 Thelas of flour to one Khan Bahadur. As a result of a raid conducted by Muhammad Yamin S.-I. Of the C. I. A. Staff, Chuna Mandi, Lahore, the flour and record lying at the ration depot of Manzoor Ahmad Butt, depot holder, were seized and taken to C.
1. A. Staff, Chuna Mandi, Lahore. Zahoor Ahmad P. W. 4, nephew of the said Manzoor Ahmad Butt, depot holder aforementioned, informed Muhammad Sadiq Khan P. W. 2 a friend of Manzoor Ahmad Butt, about the raid made on Manzoor Ahmad Butt and he requested him to accompany him to Muhammad Yamin S.-I., C.
1. A. Staff, Chuna Mandi, Lahore, who had conducted the raid, in which besides, Manzoor Ahmad Butt, depot holder, a driver and a conductor of the truck had also been arrested as the foodgrain was allegedly to be smuggled to Afghanistan from the said depot. Muhammad Sadiq P. W. 2 knew Muhammad Yamin S.-I. Accused, and as such he agreed to accompany Zahoor Ahmad P. W. 4 to him. Accordingly, he met the accused Muhammad Yamin, S.-I. Accused, investigating officer of the abovesaid case, at the C. I. A. Staff, Chuna Mandi, Lahore, and requested him to help Manzoor Ahmad Butt, then a co-accused in the abovesaid case, in respect of the case as well as in the matter of bail. Muhammad Yamin S.-I., accused, demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000 from Muhammad Sadiq Khan P. W. 2 for the purpose, holding out a promise that the case would be bushed up, that the flour would be permitted to be restored and that the accused of the said case would be arranged to be .Got released on bail.
Two days before the raid, Muhammad Sadiq Khan P. W. 2 paid a sum of Rs. 6,000 to Muhammad Yamin, S.-I. Accused, in the Green Hotel, Maclagan Road, Lahore in the presence of Zahoor Ahmad P. W. 4 and Muhammad Ashraf P. W. 3, when the balance of Rs. 4.000 was promised to be paid to him on the day of raid, i.e. 18th March, 1975 at about 11-30 a. m. At the same hotel. Muhammad Sadiq Khan P. W. 2 did not want to pay any mote bribe money to Muhammad Yamin S.-I., accused, and as such he, on 18th March, 1975, reported the matter to the A. C. E., Lahore vide F. I. R. No. P. W.
2/C and a raid was thus arranged. A raiding party comprising Muhammad Sadiq Khan', complainant P. W.
2. Zahoor Ahmad P. W. 4, Muhammad Shah, D. S. P., A. C. E., P. W. 7, Muhammad Nawaz, Inspector, A: C. E. P. W. 6, Anwarul Hassan, Inspector, A. C. E., Lahore (given up P. W.), Muhammad Afzal S.-I. (given up P: W.), Habib Alam, .Head Constable and Nasrullah Khan, M. I. C., P.
W. 9 was formed on the same day, i. e. 18th March, 1975. Before that, Nasrullah Khan, Magistrate P.
W. 9 recorded the statement Exh. P. W. 2/A of Muhammad Sadiq Khan, complainant P. W.
2. In this connection and also noted down the serial numbers of G. C. Notes of Rs. 4,000, forty in number, each of the denomination of Rs. 100 as pro--duced before him by the said complainant, and the same were then returned to Muhammad Sadiq P. W. 2 for delivering the same to Muhammad Yamin S.-I. Accused, at Green Hotel, Lahore.
The members of the raiding party referred to above reached Green Hotel, Maclagan Road, Lahore.
The hotel was open, but it was not transacting business, due to the death of its proprietor Muhammad Shah. Nasrullah Khan, Magistrate P. W. 9, Muhammad Shafi, D. S. P., P. W.
7. Muhammad Nawaz, Inspector P. W. 6, Muhammad Sadiq Khan P. W. 2 and Zahoor Ahmad P. W. 4 entered the Green Hotel, while other members of the raiding party took their positions outside the hotel. They waited for the arrival of the accused for about half an hour. The accused Muhammad Yamin S.-I.
Did not turn up within that period, whereupon Muhammad Shafi, D. S. P. P. W. 7 and Muhammad Nawaz Inspector P. W. 6 came out of the hotel. Muhammad Sadiq complainant P. W. 2 and Zahoor Ahmad P. W. 4 also came out of the hotel near the counter outside. Meantime, a police officer in uniform came on a bicycle. The Magistrate observed him through the glass panes of the hotel. At the same time, Muhammad Shafi D. S. P. P. W. 7 also intimated to the Magistrate about the arrival of the accused Muhammad Yamin S.-I. Who had begun talking to .The complainant, Muhammad Sadiq Khan P. W. 2, while stand--ing with him and Zahoor Ahmad P. W.
4. The Magistrate came out of the hotel and within his hearing, Muhammad Yamin S.-I., accused told the complainant Muhammad Sadiq Khan P. W. 2 that he would be receiv--ing the amount inside the car, which was standing almost in front of the hotel nearby. This car belonged to Muhammad Sadiq Khan P. W. 2.
The Magistrate at that time was present about 2 yards away from the accused. Muhammad Sadiq Khan P. W. 2 and the accused, Muhammad Yamin S: I. Then both sat on the front seat inside the car, when Zahoor Ahmad P. W. 4 sat on the rear seat of the car. The Magistrate saw the complain. Ant Muhammad Sadiq Khan P. W. 2 taking out the money from his pocket and then handing it over to Muhammad Yamin S.-l., accused. The accused Muhammad Yamin took the tainted G. C. Notes in his right hand and then placed the same on the seat at the right hand side placing a parcel on the said tainted G. C. Notes, which parcel pertained to some other case and was with him. Nasrullah Khan Magistrate P. W. 9 and Muhammad Shafi D. S. P. P. W. 7 reached the accused, when Muhammad Nawaz Inspector A. C. E. P. W. 6 also joined them in the meantime. They disclosed their identity to Muhammad Yamin S.-I. Accused, and told him that he had received the bribe money and that he should produce the same before them whereupon Muhammad Yamin S.-I., accused, impulsively put his hand on the tainted money and the packet lying over it. The Magistrate then took the tainted money and the said parcel which was placed over it, into possession. The Magistrate compared the serial numbers of the tainted G. C. Notes with the serial numbers of the G.
C. Notes which he had noted down earlier in the raid report and the same tallied. The parcel referred to above, that was put by the accused over the tainted money, was also taken into possession. The Magistrate then recorded the statement of P. W. Zahoor Ahmad Exh. P. W. 4/A. The Magistrate also recorded supplementary statement of P. W. Muhammad Sadiq Khan. It is Exh.
P.W.2/B. The Magistrate also examined the accused, Muhammad Yamin S.-I. Who made statement Exh. P. W. 9/F. The accused was then arrested and ultimately challaned.
3. Muhammad Yamin, S.-I. Accused when examined by the raiding Magistrate made statement Exh.
P. W. 9/F. The gist of his statement is that on secret information he raided Manzoor Ahmad Butt, depot holder, on the night between 10th and 11th March, 1975 as flour and sugar were being smuggled from Pakistan to Afghanistan, that Manzoor Ahmad Butt was found to possession of a bogus licence and as such he alongwith other concerned persons were apprehended and that the relatives of Manzoor Ahmad Butt, depot holder, met him with the request that he (the accused) should not obtain police remand of 'the accused persons and that the flour so seized should be restored. They also. Promised to produce before him (the accused) foodgrain licence of Manzoor Ahmad Butt, depot holder, and that a day before the raid those very persons again met him in A.
G.'s Office, Lahore, where he had gone in connection with the investigation of some fraud cases, where they insisted that he should take a cup of tea with them at Green Hotel, Maclagon Road, Lahore, and as such be took a cup of tea with them there. They also promised to pro--duce before him the foodgrain licence and that on the day of raid, he appeared in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, then came to A. G. Office, Lahore, and met Abdul Aziz, Accounts Officer, and Sh. Muhammad Yousaf, Assistant Accounts Officer, for obtaining record in fraud cases, and that from there he was to go to the District Courts, Lahore for depositing case property relating to case F. I. R. No. 825/74 under section 409, P. P. C., P. S. Qila Guar Singh, Lahore, into the Government Treasury under orders of the A. D. C. (G), Lahore, and that when he was going from A. G. Office, Lahore, towards District Courts via Green Hotel, Maclagon Road, Lahore, he saw Manzoor Ahmad and his friend standing in front of the hotel, who stopped him and invited him into the hotel, but he requested to be excused whereupon they requested him to leave the bicycle there, offering him a lift up to District Courts, Lahore, in the car. One of the persons in the car, who was known to him by appearance, took out some money and extended the same towards him, but he declined saying as to what was that for and he prevented him with his hand not to do so, but that person left the money at the seat of the car on his left side, when in the meantime the Inspector and D. S. P., A. C. E.
Came and apprehended him. When examined under section 342, Cr. P. C. He took the plea saying that Muhammad Sadiq Khan P. W. 2 had tried to give him some money in the car, but he told him that he should deposit the same as security for the release of flour and that he also told him that such a security could only be deposited after obtaining the orders from the Ilaqa Magistrate and that he refused to accept the amount which was being pail to him, but Muhammad Sadiq P. W. 2 placed the same on the seat of the car and the same was later recovered from there. He examined two witnesses in his defence. Ramzan Ali Shah S.-I. C. I. A. Staff D. W. 1 stated that on 11th April, 1975 Muhammad Ali, Moharrir Head Constable, handed over to him Rs. 10,000 which was to be deposited as cash security for the release of flour in case F. I. R. No. 101/75 under section 467/468/471, P. P. _C.
And under sections 3 and 6 of Foodstuffs Control Act and that he accordingly deposited the same in the State Bank against a treasury challan, a photostat copy of which is Exh. D. W. I/D and that he also recorded report No. 18 in the daily diary register of the C. I. A. Staff on 11th April, 1975 about the deposit of Rs. 10,000 in the State Bank and a copy of the said report is Exh. D. W. I /A. The sum and substance of the evidence of D. W. 2 Karam Hussain Bhatti, now retired S.-I., was that in the years 1972 to 1975 he was posted as S.-I. In the Special Inspection and Enforcement Team, Civil Secretariat, Lahore, and that he investigated about various irregularities committed by the food officers in respect of food laws and that in March, 1975 Muhammad Yamin S.-I., accused, was investigating a case under the Foodstuffs Control Act and he came to him whereupon he guided him about the investigation of that case in connection with various irregularities and defalcations.
4. The learned trial Judge, relying on the testimony of the members of the raiding party, convicted and sentenced Muhammad Yatnin, S.-I. Accused, as stated in para 1, above.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and have also perused the record. It cannot be denied that Muhammad Sadiq Khan, complainant P. W. 2, Muhammad Ashraf P. W. 3, and Zahoor Ahmad P. W. 4 materially resiled from their earlier statements, and were declared hostile at the instance of P.P., whereas Muhammad Nawaz, Inspector A.C.E. P. W. 6, Muhammad Shall D.S.P., A.C.E., P.W. 7 and Nasrullah, M.I.C., P. W. 9 supported the case of the prosecution to the hilt. However, some material favourable to the prosecution also appears from the statements of Muhammad Sadiq Khan, P. W. 2 and Zahoor Ahmad P. W.
4. Muhammad Sadiq Khan, P.W. 2 stated that Manzoor Ahmad Butt, depot holder and foodgrain licensee, was his friend, whose depot was raided by the C.I.A. Staff, from which flour and sugar were seized. Zaboor Ahmad P.W. 4, the nephew of Manzoor Ahmad Butt, had contacted him to accompany him to the S.-I. Who had conducted the raid as he was known to the appellant. Accordingly, he met the appellant at the C.I.A. Staff in Chuna Mandi, Lahore, and requested the appellant to help Manzoor Ahmad and his co-accused in respect of the case and in the matter of bail. According to him, the appellant told him that he was not in a position to help. He then requested the appellant that the bags of flour and sugar which bad been seized may be allowed to be restored to Manzoor Ahmad, in respect of which the appellant told him that he could do this, but an application should be made to the Court for the release of the commodities and that a sum of Rs. 10,000 in cash be deposited, where--upon the goods would be restored. The appellant further told him that he would be present in the Court of Session where be could produce food--grain licence. The appellant told him that he would be going to the A.G. Office in connection with investigation of another case. He further stated that the appellant did not meet them in the Sessions Court and he and Zahoor Ahmad P.W. 4 went to the A.G. Office where they met the appellant and from there took tea with the appellant in the Green Hotel, whereafter they returned. On the following day, Zahoor Ahmad P. W. 4 met him and told him that he bad gone to the appellant in C.1 .A. Office at Chuna Mandi where he bad met Muhammad Nawaz, Inspector, who told him that Muhammad Yamin S.-I., appellant had been harsh towards them and that it was better if they gave him some money, and that as he was the appellant's friend, he should arrange to pay .Money to the appellant. He accordingly went with Zahoor Ahmad P.W. 4 to C.I.A's. Office, but the appellant was not there. They then went to the Sessions Court, but .The appellant was also not there. He and Zahoor Ahmad had gone to these places in his car which he owned. They then met Mubammad Nawaz, Inspector A.C.E. P.W. 6, to whom they gave the information. But it was not reduced into writing. A D.S.P. Of A. C. E., asked them to reach Green Hotel.
They then proceeded in the car to the Green Hotel. The D.S.P., A.C.E., and a Magistrate came in different vehicles and took their positions in Green Hotel. He and. Zaboor Ahmad, P.W. 4, took their position in their car. Muhammad Yamin, S.-I., appellant, came on a bicycle from A. G. Office side. He told the appellant that he would be producing Saeed, co-accused, and the foodgrain licence before him on the following day. The appellant had a sealed parcel in his hand. The appellant told him that he was in a hurry because he wanted to deposit the sealed parcel, whereupon he told the appellant that he should sit with him in his car and he would take him to the District Courts, Lahore.
He tried to give a sum of Rs. 4,000 to the appellant, while sitting in the car, which the appellant declined to receive. He placed the tainted G.C. Notes amounting to Rs. 4,000 underneath his left thigh on the seat. He started the car and in the meantime an Inspector of A.C.E. Came and asked the appellant to come out and almost physically pulled him out. By then a Magistrate also came there from inside the Hotel alongwith the D.S.P. The person of the appellant was searched by them, but no money was recovered from him. The tainted G.C. Notes amounting to Its. 4,000 which were under his left thigh, he handed over to them. He and Zahoor Ahmad, P. W. 4 were asked to go to the Office of A.C.E. In the car, whereas Muhammad Yamin, appellant, was taken by them in their official van. He was asked to remain outside the Office alongwith Zahoor Ahmad P. W. 4 and that when he was called in after about 2 hours, he was asked to sign some papers the contents of which were not read over to him, which he signed. In cross-examination, he admitted that the statement Ex. P.
W. 2/B was signed by him at the place Exh. P.W. 2/B/1, but the statement was not read over to him.
He denied that the accused had demanded Rs. 10,000 as bribe, or that the appellant did not advise them to deposit the said amount as security to secure the release of goods, or that two days prior to the raid he and Zahoor Ahmad P. W. 4 had paid a sum of Rs. 6,000 as bribe to the appellant in the Green Hotel, or that any statement of his was recorded before the raid, or that the appellant had received the money from him as bribe in the car, or that the Magistrate, D.S.P. And others recovered the money from him. Zahoor Ahmad P.W. 4 admitted that he had joined the raiding party on the date of occurrence as one of its members, that two days before the raid he had accompanied Muhammad Sadiq Khan P.W. 2 to the C.I.A. Staff for securing the release of Manzoor Ahmad, depot holder, who was his relative, that a day before the raid Muhammad Sadiq Khan, P. W.
2 met the appellant in the A. G. Office and took him to Green Hotel where they took tea and that on the date of raid, they had gone to the Green Hotel where the appellant came on a bicycle which he stopped outside the hotel. The appellant had a parcel in his hand. Muhammad Sadiq Khan, P.W. 2 asked the appellant to sit in the hotel. Whereupon the appellant stated that he had a parcel, upon which the appellant was- asked to sit in the car. Muhammad Sadiq Khan. P. W. 2, sat on the front seat whereas be took his seat on the bock. As the appellant had stated that he was in a hurry, Sadiq Khan, P. W. 2, offered him a lift in the car. Muhammad Sadiq Khan, P. W. 2, picked out some money which he offered to the appellant for the purpose of depositing the same as security against the release of the atta, which the appellant had earlier seized. The appellant told them the he should make an application to the Ilaqa Magistrate and get an order for depositing the same as security in the Bank, which they should then deposit in the Bank. In the meantime, Muhammad Sadiq, P.W. 2, placed the G.C. Notes on the seat of the car in between him and the appellant, soon after which an officer came and apprehended the appellant and some other officers came out of the wagon. The appellant was taken in the wagon while he and Muhammad Sadiq Khan, P.W. 2, followed them in their car to the Chauburji Office. They were made to sit outside the Office for two hours, whereafter they were called in and made to sign same writings, which were not read over to them. He denied the remaining portion of the prosecu--tion case. In cross-examination be admitted that he had studied till 7th/8th class. He admitted his signature, P. W. 4/A/1 on statement Exh. P. W. 4/A. But denied that the said statement was recorded by the Magistrate or read out to him. As against the evidence of Muhammad Sadiq, P.W. 2 and Zahoor Ahmad, P.W. 4, the evidence of Ch. Mnhammad Nawaz, Inspector, A.C.E. P.W.
6. Muhammad Shafi, D. S. P., A. C. E., P. W. 7 and Nasrullah Khan, M.I.C., P.W.
9. Is consistent and natural. Ch. Muhammad Shah, D.S.P., A.C.E., P.W. 7 had recorded the F. I. R.. Exh. P.W. 2/C of Muhammad Sadiq Khan, P.W. 2, which was read over to the complainant. Who signed the same in token of its correctness. There--after, a raid was organized and Muhammad Sadiq Khan, P.W. 2's state--ment Exh. P. W. 2/A/ t was in advance recorded by Nasrullah Khan, M.I.C., P. W.
9. The complainant produced forty G. C. Notes each of the denomination of rupees one hundred, the serial numbers of which were noted by the Magistrate. A raiding party comprising Ch. Nawaz, Inspector, A.C.E., P. W.
6. Muhammad Shah, D.S.P.. P.W. 7, Nasrullah, M.I.C., P. W. 9, Muhammad Sadiq Khan, P. W. 2, Zahoor Ahmad, P. W. 4 and others was formed. They reached Green Hotel, according to plan. Muhammad Shah, D.S.P., A.C.E., P. W. 7 and Nasrullah, M.I.C., P.W. 9, took their positions inside the hotel. The other members took their positions outside the hotel. Muhammad Nawaz, Inspector, A. C. E., P.W. 6, took his position across the road opposite the hotel, Muhammad Yamin, appellant, in police uniform, came to the hotel on a bicycle.
He parked his cycle next to the footpath. The D.S.P., who was then outside, immediately went inside the hotel and informed the Magistrate about the arrival of the appellant. He and the Magistrate came out of the hotel, when Muhammad Sadiq Khan. P. W. 2 and Yamin were. About to take their seats in the car. Nasrullah Khan, M.I.C., P.W. 9, according to his state--ment, was about two yards away from the appellant when he overheard Muhammad Yamin, appellant, saying to Muhammad Sadiq Khan, P.W. 2 that he would be receiving the amount inside the car: According to these three witnesses, Muhammad Sadiq Khan, P. W. 2 and Muhammad Yamin, appellant, took their seats on the front seat of the car, whereas Zaboor Ahmad, P.W. 4, sat down on the rear seat of the car.
Muhammad Sadiq Khan, P. W. 2, was sitting at the steering. According to the Magistrate, the complainant took out money from his pocket and then gave to the appellant, which the appellant took in his right hand and placed the same on the seat at his right hand side placing a parcel on the said tainted money. According to the D S.P., the complainant took out the bundle of G.C. Notes and within his view delivered the same to. The appellant where--upon the appellant made a sort of sign, the meaning of which he (D.S.P.) was not in a position to understand, but despite that the complainant handed over the bundle of notes to the appellant. The appellant put the notes in between the space which was between him and the complainant, over which the appellant placed a parcel. Thereafter, the Magistrate and the D.S.P. Disclosed their identity to the appellant, demanded the tainted money. Informed the appellant that he had received bribe money which he should produce before them, whereupon the appellant impulsively put his hand on the money and packet, which money and packet the Magistrate took into his possession. All the other members of the raiding party had in the meantime encircled the car.
6. From the testimony reproduced above, it is clear that there was a case against Manzoor Ahmad Butt, depot holder in which Muhammad Sadiq Khan. P.W. 2 and Zahoor Ahmad P.W. 4, were interested and that for the purpose of securing assistance of the appellant with the object of getting the case shelved and having the accused of the said case released on bail, the appellant was contacted and bribe money was agreed to be paid to him to secure his services. Though Muhammad Sadiq Khan, P.W. 2, tried to resile from his F.I.R., P.W. 2/C. His first statement, Exh., P.W.
2/A/1, made to the Magistrate and his statement, Exh., P.W. 2/B, made to the Magistrate after the raid, it cannot be denied that Ch. Muhammad Shafi, D.S.P., P. W. 7 and Nasrullah, M.I.C., P. W. 9 had no reason to falsely fabricate these statements as they were not interested in the complainant party or inimical to the appellant. It is, therefore, clear that the complainant party had approached Muhammad Yamin, appellant, to secure his services and had promised to reward him with a sum of Rs. 10,000. It is true that the passing of the first instalment of bribe of Rs. 6,000 does not stand proved, but the passing of the second instalment of Rs. 4,000 on the date of incident stands conclusively proved by the evidence of Muhammad Nawaz, Inspector, A.C.E., P.W. 6, Muhammad A Shafi, D.S. P. P. W. 7 and Nasrullah Khan, M.I.C., P. W.
9. They are disinterested witnesses and had no reason to falsely involve the appellant, whether out of malice to him or any platonic loyalty to the State.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to the evidence of Ch. Muhammad Nawaz, Inspector, A. C. E., P. W. 6 and Muhammad Shafi, D. S. P., P. W. 7 to the effect that they had not heard any conversa--tion passing between the appellant and the complainant both when they were outside or inside the car. However, Nasrullah, M. I. C., P. W. 9 clearly stated in his evidence that he overheard the appellant telling Muhammad Sadiq Khan P. W. 2 that he would be receiving money inside the car. At that time, the Magistrate was only two yards away from the appellant. In cross-examination, the Magistrate admitted that he did not see the complainant offering money to the appellant while the complainant and the appellant were still outside the car, that he did not bear the talk of the complainant with the appellant outside the car and that he did not over hear any conversation between the appellant and the complainant when they were sitting in the car. It is nobody's case that the complainant offered the money to the appellant while the complainant and the appel-- lant were outside the car. It is also not the prosecution case that anybody overheard any conversation between the appellant and the complainant while they were sitting inside the car. As regards the Magistrate's state--ment that he did not hear the talk of the complainant with the appellant outside the car, this appears to be correct, because according to his state--ment in examination-in-chief he had only overheard the talk of the appel--lant with the complainant outside the car. If the Magistrate bad stated in cross-examination that he had not heard the talk between the complain--ant and the appellant outside the car, then it may have created a contradic--tion with his evidence in examination-in-chief. In these circumstances, if have no reason to doubt that the sum of Rs. 4,000 was passed to the appel--lant as bribe in the car by the complainant.
This now leaves me with the defence story taken by the appellant. In his statement Exh. P. W. 9/F recorded by the Magistrate, the appellant tried to suggest that some money was offered by the complainant in the car, which he had, declined saying as to what was the same for and that he had prevented the complainant with his hand from delivering the same, but that the complainant had placed the money on the seat on his left side, when in the meantime the raiding party came and apprehended him. In his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. He stated that the complainant on the date of raid tried to give him some money with the request that he should deposit the said amount as security for the release of the Atta, upon which he asked them that the security could be deposited after obtained an order from the Magistrate and that he refused to accept that amount for depositing the same as security, which the complainant then placed on the seat of the car, which was later recovered by the raiding party. He also tried to suggest that the complainant had earlier also asked him for the release of the atta on supurdari to him which he had refused and had told him that in this connection a cash payment of Rs. 10,000 would have to be made as security under the order of the Magistrate, which when done, he would then make a report in their favour for the release of the Atta. It appears that initially when the statement was recorded by the Magistrate the appellant never took up the plea which he referred to in his statement at the trial. In defence, the appellant pro--duced Ramzan Ali Shah, S.-I. D. W. 1 to prove that on 11th April, 1.975 one Muhammad Ali, M. H. C. (not produced) had handed over to him Rs. 10,000 which was to be deposited as cash security for-the release of the atta on supurdari in the case in which Manzoor Ahmad was involved upon which the said amount was deposited and a report was made in the roznam--cha to that effect. Normally, when a supurdar has to deposit a security in Court for release of goods lying in custody with the police, the treasury challan is prepared by the Court and signed by the Magistrate, whereafter the supuidar himself deposits the money in Court and after securing the receipted treasury challan, secures an order from the trial Magistrate addressed to the investigating officer or the incharge of the Malkhana for the release of goods. In the present case, by fair means or foul, an order Exh. D. W. 1/C, was secured from the Magistrate addressed to the Incharge, C. I. A., Lahore, that Rs. 10,000 should be received from the accused in the case and deposited in the treasury and goods should be released to supurdar. This order is dated 5th April, 1975. In the first instance, this order has been passed eighteen days after the raid. On the date of raid or prior thereto, nobody knew that the Magistrate would be calling for a security deposit of Rs.
10,000 for the release of the goods in custody of the police. 'In order to make up a defence story which would fit in with the amount of Rs. 10,000 alleged by the complainant to have been demanded by the appellant, ex post facto order was secured to show that the goods were allowed to be released to the supurdar on a security of Rs. 10,000 being-deposited and, to crown the situation, an order was manoeuvred from the Magistrate directing the Incharge, C. I. A., Lahore, to receive the sum in cash from the accused and to deposit the same in the treasury and to release the goods thereafter to the supardar, which pro--cedure I have never come across before in any criminal case. I also note that the learned trial Judge has dealt with the defence story in detail and has rejected it and I agree with his findings, which also correspond to mine. The defence story is, therefore, rejected.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution has proved its case to the hilt against Muhammad Yamin, S.-I., appellant. He appears to have been properly convicted and sentenced.
However, the fine of Rs. 50,000 imposed upon him appears to be excessive and is reduced to Rs.
20,000.
9. For the foregoing reasons, whilst upholding the conviction of Muhammad Yamin, S.-I., appellant, under section 161, P. P. C. Read with B section 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, 1 would maintain his sentence of three years' R.-I. But reduce the fine to Rupees Twenty Thousand (Rs.
20,000). In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. This appeal, therefore, stands partly accepted, in terms of reduction in fine, as stated above. The appellant is on bail. He is ordered to be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve out the remaining portion of his) sentence.