' This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned pecial Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore-1 whereby he on 28-7-1979 convicted All Hussain appellant under section 161, P.P.C. And sentenced in till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs,1,000 in default thereof to further R.I. For six months.
2. The charge against the appellant was that he alongwith Muhammad hafi (since dead) demanded and accepted Rs,150 as illegal gratification rom Faryad Ali P.W.2. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined four witnesses. Aryad Ali P.W.2 appeared to prove the demand and acceptance of legal gratification by Ali Hussain appellant and his further passing on o Muhammad Shafi co-accused. Muhammad Naeem Siddiqui Magistrate W. 1 and Raja Muhammad Ayub S.I. A.C.E. Were produced to prove recovery of the tainted currency note from the appellant. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature. The witnesses supported the prosecution case.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant and his co-accused denied the incriminating circumstances. The appellant while admitting the receipt of the tainted currency notes and passing on to the co-accused, explained that the complainant owed Rs, 150 to Muhammad Shan and the same was given to him by him towards that loan. Muhammad Shafi co- accused raised almost the same plea. In defence they produced four witnesses.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to prove that the tainted currency notes were accepted by the appellant as illegal gratification. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has 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 of the tainted money and its further passing on by the appellant to Muhammad Shafi co-accused having been admitted, the material and important question for consideration and determination is whether the same were paid as illegal gratification or not. Since the Magistrate and the accompanying police officer had not heard the talk between the appellant and the complainant which preceded the passing on of the tainted currency notes to the appellant, therefore, the evidence of the complainant alone remains in field upon which no implicit reliance can be placed without corroboration. Since there is no corroboration of the decoy witness with regard to the nature of the transaction, therefore, I am of the view that it would be unsafe to uphold the conviction. Giving him the benefit of doubt, he is acquitted of the charge.