' Abdul Rashid Patwari was convicted by Mr. Lutaf Ali Malik, Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Rawalpindi (Camp Sargodha) vide judgment, dated 9th September, 1972 under section 161, P. P. C.
Read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, to a sentence of till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs, 200 or in default to undergo three months' R. I.
2. The facts of the case are that the complainant Amir son of Hata wanted to mortgage his land to Manak. They both allegedly went to Abdul Rashid Patwari for effecting change in the revenue record. It is alleged that Abdul Rashid demanded Rs, 200 as illegal gratification. Ultimately, the bargain was settled at Rs,
150. After a promise to Abdul Rashid accused, Amir complainant went to P. S., A. C. E. Sargodha and lodged the F. I. R. On 23rd July, 1970, at 8-30 a. m. Repeating the same allegations. At this, the Anti-Corruption Establishment alongwith Kh. Maqsood Pervaiz, Magistrate 1st Class, Bhalwal organised a raid. A perusal of the proceedings of the raid Exhs. P. B. And P. F.
Shows that Amir was sent with the bribe money for payment to Abdul Rashid. When the Magistrate was informed that the money had passed on to Abdul Rashid, he alongwith the police party rushed to the accused. His person was searched but nothing was recovered. Thereafter, the Magistrate and the police party went inside the residential house of Abdul Rashid Patwari and after a search of about one hour, S. I. Aziz-ud-Din traced out the alleged money that had been passed on to Abdul Rashid accused. The accused was challaned, tried and convicted as stated above.
3. In support of its case the prosecution examined P. W. 1 Amir who supported the F. I. R. It was stated by him that the bribe money had been given by him to one Faiz Ahmad and not to Abdul Rashid appellant. He was consequently declared hostile and cross-examined. P. W. 2 Kh. Maqsood Pervaiz, Magistrate supported the proceedings of raid and confirmed the note prepared by him at that time. P. W. 3 is Aziz-ud-Din Circle Officer who had organised the raid and had allegedly recovered the bribe money from the house of the appellant. P. W. 4 Mehr Muhammad Nawaz only partly investigated this case.
4. The accused when examined denied the charge and pleaded innocence. He, however, did not produce any evidence in defence.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for appellant and find that the Magistrate did not hear the talk between Amir P. W. 1 and Abdul Rashid accused at the time when the alleged bribe money was passed on to the accused. This was necessary to bring home the charge to the accused. The persons who had informed the raiding Magistrate about passing of the bribe money also did not hear nor have they been examined in Court in support of that story. Secondly, no bribe money was recovered from the person of the accused immediately after the raid and it was stated to have been recovered by the Inspector after one hour of the search of the house of the accused. This makes the recovery of the bribe money itself highly doubtful. It may be noticed that Amir P. W.
When examined in Court did not support the prosecution case and stated that the money had been passed on to Faiz Muhammad and not to the accused Abdul Rashid.
6. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the case against the appellant is not proved. He is accordingly acquitted. The e amount of fine of Rs, 200 will be refunded to the appellant, if he had already paid.