1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-The petitioner, who was at the stare relevant time posted as Station Master, Mahota Railway Station, was convicted under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 12 months. On appeal, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, has upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence by six months. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal.
2. The case against him was that some 15 days after he had joined as Station Master of Mahota Railway Station he had demanded a sum of annas three per basket of Guavas booked from that station from the complainant, Mahboob Ali (P. W. 1) by way of illegal gratification. Mahboob Ali complained to the Anti-Corruption Inspector, Larkana, who arranged for a trap under the instructions from the Resident Magistrate, Larkana. Marked currency notes were made over to the complainant who went to the petitioner and asked him to book 12 baskets of Guavas. The petitioner, it is alleged, asked the complainant to pay the illegal gratification at the rate of three annas per basket for two previous consignments as also for the consignment he then wanted to be booked. The complainant agreed to comply with the demand of the petitioner. Thereupon the petitioner made a calculation of the illegal gratification demanded by him on a rough piece of paper and asked the complainant to pay him in all a sum of Rs. 56-8-0. The complainant paid Rs.
3. 57 in marked currency notes and gave the arranged signal. The trap party came to the office and recovered the marked currency notes from the ticket tube.
4. The defence of the petitioner was that the money had been planted in the ticket tube by the complainant on account of enmity, as he was not prepared to oblige him by under-weighing goods as was done by his predecessor-in-office. In support of this defence the petitioner examined one witness and produced a letter written by the Divisional Office, Sukkur, asking him to submit an explanation of the staff responsible for under-weighing some consignments which were despatched on the 26th of May 1964.
5. Since the recovery of the marked currency notes from the ticket tube was not disputed, the defence of the petitioner was considered to be wholly improbable. The Courts below have been impressed particularly by the production of the rough sheet on which the calculation of the amount of illegal gratifica--tion had been made by the petitioner in his own handwriting. They were of the view that if the complainant was not on good terms with the petitioner, there could be no question of the petitioner making the calculation of the amount of commission recoverable by the complainant from his own customers at the latters' request, as suggested by the petitioner in his defence.
6. Learned counsel appearing in support of the petition contends that the defence evidence has not been properly considered by the Courts below. We are, however, unable to agree with him. The reasons given by the High Court seem to suggest that the defence story was so highly improbable that the evidence in support of it could not be relied upon.
7. The evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case is not only supported by the recovery of the sheet on which the calcula--tion was made in the handwriting of the petitioner but also by two witnesses, of whom at least one was a completely disinterested witness.
8. The suggestion that the money was planted in the ticket tube by the complainant and the witnesses, is so highly improbable that we can give no credence to it at all. The ticket tube contains the proceeds of the sales of other tickets as well. It is hardly likely, therefore, that the Station Master would allow strangers to approach the ticket tube.
9. The defence suggestion that because there was an enquiry being held in respect of a complaint for under-weighing articles booked from this station by the predecessor of the petitioner, therefore the consignees of goods from this Railway Station entered into a conspiracy to have the petitioner removed from this station, is also baseless. It has nothing whatever to do with the present complaint about the demand of illegal gratification.
10. It is not without significance that the marked currency notes were admittedly recovered from the ticket tube and the petitioner has not been able to furnish any satisfactory explanation of how the money got there. In the circumstances, we see no ground for interference in the matter. All the questions raised are ,g purely questions of appreciation of evidence which is not, as a rule, undertaken by this Court. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.