1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-The petitioner ha; been convicted under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code on the allegation that he as Tehsildar asked for and received bribe for accepting rents for a particular jama from P. W. 1 Shamsul Haque. He was caught as the result of a trap attended among others by a Magistrate and the money paid as rent and as bribe were recovered from the possession of the petitioner and his co-accused Lal Mia respectively. Co-accused Lal Mia was petitioner's Paik. The identical marked currency notes were seized from their posses--sion and the petitioner and his co-accused were tried for offences under sections 161 and 161/114 of the Penal Code respectively and while the petitioner was convicted and sentenced the co---accused was acquitted.
2. The petitioner's defence was that he was falsely prosecuted at the instance of a college student P.
3. W. Shamsul Haque who had a grudge against the petitioner.
4. On behalf of the petitioner it has been contended that the High Court illegally omitted to consider the judgment of a con--nected previous case in which the petitioner was acquitted. The contention has a reference to the splitting up of the case against the petitioner at the direction of the High Court, and is evidently untenable. The present case against the petitioner stands or fails on its own evidence, and neither the evidence nor the judgment of the previous case concerning another transaction can be taken into consideration for the purpose of conviction or acquittal.
5. Other contentions on behalf of the petitioner related to appreciation of the evidence by the Courts below, and this Court does not entertain such contentions.
6. The application is, accordingly, dismissed.