' This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption whereby he on 8-7-1980 convicted Abdul Aziz Siddiqui under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to one year's R.I. And a fine of Rs,2,000 in default thereof further R.I. For 3 months.
2. The appellant was Taxation Clerk in Excise and Taxation Office, Jhang. The charge against him was that he received Rs,200 as illegal gratification from Ali Hassan P.W.1. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case prosecution produced three witnesses. All Hassan P.W.1 appeared to prove demand as well as acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant from him. Ch. Amir Ali Magistrate P.W.2 and Muhammad Bashir Khan P.W.3 produced to prove the recovery of tainted currency notes from him. The witnesses supported the prosecution case.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant denied incriminating circumstances. He denied the receipt of any bribe money from the complainant. He stated that just before the raid Ali Hassan complainant came in his office, sat in his chair, placed tainted currency notes on his chair and when the raiding party entered into the office, he pointing towards the currency notes, stated that the same were thrown on the chair by him (accused).
5. In defence he produced Muhammad Nawaz Shad D.W.1 who supported the version of the appellant.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; that the prosecution witnesses are not reliable and that there is a reasonable possibility of the defence version being true. Conversely the learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the trial Court.
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I do not feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. I find that it was within the view of the Magistrate that the appellant took out tainted currency notes from his pocket and threw the same on ground. Muhammad Bashir Khan P.W.3 stated that in his presence the appellant took out the tainted currency notes from the pocket of his shirt and threw towards a chair lying nearby. The Magistrate and the Inspector are quite independent witnesses. They have stood the test of cross-examination. The learned counsel has' not been able to point material contradictions discrepancies in their statements. The complainant states that the appellant had received the tainted currency notes from him as illegal gratification. In view of the statement of the Magistrate that the appellant took out the tainted currency notes from his pocket and threw on the ground; the plea of the accused/appellant and defence evidence to the effect that the appellant had never received the tainted currency notes from the complainant and that it was the complainant who had placed the money on the chair in order to involve the appellant, appears to be concoctions.
8. For all these reasons 1 am convinced that the appellant has rightly been convicted and the sentence awarded to him is also not excessive.
9. For what has been stated above, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall surrender himself immediately before the trial Court.