1. ' Appellant abovenamed, being aggrieved by judgment dated 26th May, 1981 of the learned Special Judge/Inquiry Officer, Hyderabad, in special case No, 74 of 1978, by which appellant has been convicted under section 161, P. P. C. Read with section 5 (2) of Act II of 1947 and sentenced to suffer R. I. For one year and to pay fine of Rs, 5,000 or in default to suffer further R. I. For 3 months, has preferred the above appeal on the following facts and grounds : ' The facts leading to this case are that Haji Dur Muhammad resides in village Darya Khan. A canal known as Imam Wah passes by their village. In September, 1977 Bachuu Zamindar irrigated his land through a pipe of 10-12" in breadth by fixing it in the canal illegally. He had not taken permission from the P. W. Department for fixing the pipe in the canal. The agricultural land of Buchuu is adjoining to the residential houses and mosque of the village. He used the pipe for 24 hours, which resulted inundation of water in their village and caused damage to the mosque and houses. The villagers prevented Bachuu not to overflow the water to their village. But he turned a deaf ear. Haji Dur Muhammad made an application Exh. 3 to the Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad, who forwarded the same to Mukhtiarkar Tando Muhammad Khan for necessary action. He passed on the application to the Mukhtiarkar Tando . Muhammad Khan, who endorsed the same and forwarded it to Tapedar Nazar Muhammad. The Tapedar visited the site and took statement of the villagers. He also prepared the sketch, but to no effect. Again after 15-20 days, he made another application Exh. 9 to the Deputy Commissioner, who forwarded it to the Mukhtiarkar. Haji Dur Muhammad presented the application before the Mukhtiarkar, who referred him to Cterk Ashique Hussain. Ashique Hussain told him to come after 2 days. After 2 days he went to Ashique Clerk, who informed him that they had directed Supervising Tapedar Haji/Shah appellant to visit the site and give report. He contacted supervising Tepedar the present appellant. The appellant told Haji Dur Muhammad, that he will do the needful and he demanded Rs, 300 as bribe from him, Rs, 200 for himself and Rs, 100 for Ashique Hussain, Clerk. Haji Dur Muhammad promised that he would pay the bribe money on 21st January, 1978 at Tando Muhammad Khan in his office. On 21st January, 1978 Haji Dur Muhammad reported to Anti-Corruption Office, Hyderabad and lodged his F.I.R. The Circle Officer arranged for a trap and appellant was caught red-handed with the tainted money. After necessary investigation the appellant was Challaned.
2. ' Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3. ' Appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. Pleaded innocence. He further stated, that he accepted Rs, 300 as land revenue assess amount on behalf of Gul Sher son of Khan Muhammad. He further stated, that prosecution has not examined the mashir of recovery of trap money and other papers. He further stated that Investigating Officer has not been examined, as he has expired. He further added that he had pressed complainant for payment of land revenue on behalf of one Gul Sher, who had given the money to complainant for payment. This caused annoyance to him. He has led defence.
4. ' The learned trial Court taking into consideration the evidence adduced before it, convicted and sentenced the appellant abovenamed as hereinabove mentioned and consequently the appellant has filed the above appeal, on the grounds mentioned in the memo. Of appeal.
5. ' The learned Advocate for the appellant in support of the above appeal submitted as under :-
(a) That the appellant has been convicted on the solitary uncorroborated statement of complainant P. W. Haji Din Muhammad and that P. Ws. As well as learned Magistrate contradict each other on material points. In view of this the conviction of the appellant cannot legally be sustained.
(b) That the learned trial Court failed to take into consideration Exh. 25 the appellant's statement.
6. (c)That there is no evidence on record regarding the talks between the appellant and complainant at the time of passing of alleged tainted money and consequently appellant's statement Exh. 25 could not be overlooked and therefore, appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.
7. ' In support of the above contentions the learned Advocate for the appellant relied upon cases reported in 1975 P Cr. L J 1086, 1976 P Cr. L J 273, 1978 P Cr. L J 32, 1972 P Cr. L J 727 and PLD 1979 Kar.
8. 294.
9. ' The learned Advocate appearing for the State at the outset submitted, that he was not supporting the impugned judgment, in view of the admitted position on record, that there is no corroboration at all available on record to support the solitary statement of the complainant, but on the contrary the stand of the appellant regarding alleged receipt of money for the reasons given by him in his statement Exh. 25 finds support from the statement of learned Magistrate, who supervised the raid.
10. ' I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocate before me and have gone through R & P of the learned trial Court as well as impugned judgment and cases cited by the learned Advocate for the appellant.
11. It is admitted position, that no other P. W. Except complainant, examined before the learned trial Court heard conversation between appellant and complainant at the time of passing of tainted money in question. In view of this immediate statement made by the appellant vide Exh. 25 cannot be ignored, in the face of the statement of P. W. 5 Haji Rafiq Ahmed, second class Magistrate, who supervised the trap and raid in question. According to P. W. 5 the appellant had Revenue Receipt Book on his table and was open and appellant had pencil in his hand. In my opinion appellant by his statement Exh. No, 25 and cross-examination of P W. Haji Rafiq Ahmed discharged the burden and explained the possession of tainted money recovered from him and this creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution case, as alleged against him, also. The cases cited by the learned Advocate for the appellant are fully applicable to applicant's case.
12. ' Therefore, I allow the above appeal and set aside conviction and sentences awarded to the appellant by the impugned judgment and acquit him, by given him benefit of doubt and discharge the bail bonds executed by appellant, in the above appeal.