' This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, whereby he on 25-5-1983 convicted Abdul Hameed appellant under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to nine months' R.I. And a fine of Rs,500, in default thereof to further R.I. For 20 days.
2. The appellant was working as Consumer Clerk in the Office of S.D.O., WAPDA, Chishtian. The charge against him is that he demanded and then accepted Rs,50 as illegal gratification to show favour to him in the installation of electricity connection at his house. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 5 witnesses. Muhammad Akram P.W.4 appeared to prove demand and acceptance of tainted currency notes as bribe from him. Abdul Hameed Constable P.W.3 and Anwar Ali Magistrate 1st Class, P.W.1 were produced to prove the recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant. They supported the prosecution case.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant while admitting the receipt of recovery of tainted money from him explained that Rs,50 were given to him for preparation of documents afresh for new connection. In defence he produced Muhammad Yar D.W. 1 and Khurshid Ahmad D.W. 2 who supported his version.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution has failed to prove that the tainted currency notes were given to the appellant as bribe.
' Conversely, the learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the trial Court.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the receipt and recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant having been admitted, the material and most important question for determination is as to whether the same were accepted as bribe or not. I find that Muhammad Akram P.W.4 has clearly stated that at the time when he passed tainted currency notes to the appellant, he was all alone. I further find that since the Magistrate had not heard the talk which preceded the passing on of the money, therefore, on the nature of transaction, uncorroborated testimony of a decoy witness alone remains in the field upon which I am not prepared to place implicit reliance. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the tainted currency notes were given to the appellant as bribe money and as such reasonable probability of his version being true is very much there.
7. For what has been stated above, giving him benefit of doubt the appellant is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail, he stands discharged from bail bonds.
Acquittal ordered.