' This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Faisalabad whereby he on 18-9-1984 convicted Inayat Ullah appellant under section 161, P.P.C. And sentenced him to imprisonment till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs,600, in default thereof to further R.I. For six months' S.1.
2. The appellant was a Peon in the Office of Assistant Commissioner, Toba Tek Singh. The charge against him was that he accepted Rs,550 as illegal gratification from the complainant Jamal Din out of which Rs,500 were to be paid to Muhammad Sharif Reader to A.C. And Rs,50 was the share of the appellant. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case prosecution examined 5 witnesses. Jamal Din P.W.5 appeared to prove demand as well as acceptance of illegal gratification. Sarfaraz Ahmad Magistrate P.W.2 and Abdul Razzaq. Inspector Anti-Corruption, P.W.1 appeared to prove the recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the incriminating circumstances. In defence he did not lead any evidence.
5. The learned counsel submits that the prosecution has not been able to prove the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant; that the learned Magistrate did not hear the conversation between the complainant and the appellant; that the learned Magistrate did not see the passing on of the tainted money to the appellant; that from the evidence of the Magistrate, it is not clear as to from where the money was recovered and that the finding of the trial Court, that the Magistrate had heard the conversation is factually wrong. 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 from the statement of Magistrate and Circle Officer, it is very much proved that the tainted currency notes were recovered from the appellant; that in his statement recorded by Raiding Magistrate just after the occurrence, the appellant stated: {{URDU TEXT}} ' It has been brought on record through cross-examination that Rs,50 were paid as illegal gratification to the appellant as his share in the bribe. Jamal Din P.W.5 stated in cross-examination: "I met Sharif two days before this raid. He demanded bribe from me. At the time of demand I did not meet the accused. In my petition Exh.P.A. I did not mention the name of Inayat Ullah accused.
Sharif called Inayat Ullah accused and then advised me to pay Rs,50 as the share of Inayat accused and also to deliver the remaining sum Rs,500 to Inayat accused."
Strangely enough, the appellant at the stage of trial when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C.
Denied the factum of the recovery of tainted currency notes from him. When the statement of the prosecution tness is appreciated in the light of the statement of the appellant, no room is left for doubt that the money was received by the appellant as illegal gratification. The recovery of the tainted currency notes which stands proved by the statements of the Magistrate and the Inspector, also give rise to the presumption that the same were received by the appellant as illegal gratification. The appellant has not cared to rebut the prosecution case and its evidence. For all these reasons I am convinced that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant. The sentence awarded to him is not excessive.
7. For what has been stated above, there being no merit, the appeal is dismissed.