' This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha whereby he on 3-5-1984 convicted Muhammad Ghafran appellant under section 161, P.P.C. and sentenced him to nine months' R.I. and fine of Rs,3,000 in default thereof to further R.I. for three months.
2. The appellant was working as Patwari (revenue) in the year 1982. The charge against him is that he demanded Rs,5,000 from Abdul Shakoor complainant P.W. 1 as illegal gratification for supply of copies of revenue record but accepted Rs,1,000 on the day of raid. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove his case, the prosecution examined four witnesses. Abdul Shakoor P.W.1 appeared to prove demand and acceptance of bribe money by the appellant from him. Abdur Razzaq Sub- Circle Officer Anti-Corruption P.W.3 and Mr. Fayyaz Tehseen Magistrate P.W.4 were produced to prove the acceptance of bribe money by and its recovery from the appellant. They supported the prosecution case. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied the acceptance of bribe and subsequent recovery from him. He stated that:- "The fact is that when the raiding party and the Magistrate entered the Canteen then Shakoor stood up and he went across the table which was lying front of us. The Magistrate asked me to stand up. In fact the Anti-Corruption Inspector was more active at that time. I stood on their direction. At that time I was drinking Coca Cola from a bottle. The A.C.E., Inspector picked up the rolled up Safa from the bench and he took out the currency notes in question from the fold up Safa.
I did not receive any bribe nor demanded it.. The said Safa was of Shakoor P.W. and not mine."
' In reply to question "As to why the case was against him" he explained:- "I am innocent. Muhammad Anwar son-in-law of Shakoor P.W. had sold some land of Shakoor P.W. as his Attorney. That land was in Chak No, 58 S.B., Sargodha. On the request of Anwar aforesaid I supplied him copies of revenue record for the said land. The complainant was annoyed with me on account of supply of copies by me. I requested the complainant that in supplying copies of revenue record I have performed my official duty. The complainant was however not satisified wih this explanation given by me. On 20-4-1982, I delivered him copies of revenue record and that day also he quarrelled with me. He insulted me. About that quarrel I made entry in my Roznamcha Waqiati of 20-4-1982. A copy of that Roznamcha is Exh.D.A. On 21-4-1982 Khurshid P.W. came to me.
Khurshid is a relative of Shakoor P.W. Khurshid P.W. took me to the canteen for further talk. A few moments later Shakoor P.W. also came there. I made entries in Roznamcha Waqiati in Exh.D.B about supply of copies of revenue record to Shakoor P.W.
' On 13-4-1982 Latif brother of Shakoor P.W. also got copies of revenue record from me and I made report in the said Roznamcha which is Exh.D.C. Because of this grudge Shakoor falsely implicated me."
' In defence he examined Khurshid Ahmad D.W. 1 Mumtaz Ahmad D.W.2 and tendered in evidence Exh.D.D. copy of register pertaining to the charges of copies of revenue record. The D.Ws. supported the version of the appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; that there is a reasonable possibility of the defence version being true; that since copies. of revenue record were supplied to the complainant before the raid; therefore, there was no occasion to pay bribe to the appellant and that the presumption that tainted currency notes were received by the appellant as bribe stands successfully rebutted by the statement of the defence witnesses. Conversely the learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the trial Court.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel with care and have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant inasmuch as Fayyaz Tahseen Magistrate P.W.4 who is quite independent witness has stated that in his view the appellant had hidden the tainted money in a muffler and put the same over bench on which he was sitting from where the tainted currency notes were subsequently recovered. Abdul Razzaq P.W.3 supported the statement of the Magistrate on all material particulaRs, He stated that the appellant was carrying tainted money in his left hand and placed the same under a "Safa" which was lying there. Gul Muhammad P.W.2 also stated that the appellant had put the tainted currency notes under a piece of cloth which was lying there. These witnesses have stood the test of cross- examination. Learned counsel has failed to point out any material contradictions/discrepancy in their statements. No doubt, the Magistrate in examination-in-chief stated that he had searched the person of the appellant but in the same statement on a Court question, he explained that he had not searched the person of the appellant as the act of hiding the currency notes in the muffler and placing it on the bench was seen by him. In view of the statement made by the Magistrate, there is no reasonable possibility of the defence version given by the appellant and his witnesses being true. Since the tainted currency notes were recovered from the appellant, therefore there is a statutory presumption that the same was accepted as bribe. The defence evidence is not strong enough to rebut this presumption. For all these reasons I am convinced that the trial Court has rightly recorded the conviction of the appellant and has awarded proper sentence to him, ' For what has been stated above, the appeal is dismissed.