' This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Special Judge (Central) Lahore Camp, Multan, whereby he on 29-4-1981 convicted Javaid Saleem, the appellant under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to one month R.I. And a fine of Rs,200 in default thereof to suffer R.I. For 20 days.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that the appellant while posted as Junior Clerk in the Office of the Sub-Divisional. Officer, WAPDA, Bahawalpur, demanded Rs,20 as illegal gratification from Iqbal Ahmad P.W.1 and Iqbal alias Nanna P.W.2 for supplying them application forms for the supply of electricity. On 26-5-1977 the aforesaid P.Ws. Reported the matter to Ghaus Bakhsh, S.I. P.W.4. The S.I.
Produced these witnesses before a Magistrate who recorded their statements. Thereafter a raiding-party consisting of Ghaus Bakhsh, S.I. P.W.4, Abdul Hamid constable (not produced), Iqbal Ahmad P.W.1 and Iqbal alias Nanna P.W.2 under the supervision of Tauquir Ahmad, Magistrate was constituted. Iqbal Ahmad P.W.1 was given two currency notes of Rs,10 for giving the same to the accused as illegal gratification. The number of the currency notes were noted down by the Magistrate. P.W.1 and P.W.2 approached the appellant and gave him the currency notes whereon the appellant supplied them the application forms. The tainted money was put by the appellant in his pocket. On receiving the signal the raiding-party entered the office. The appellant then put the currency notes in the drawer of table wherefrom the same were taken out by the Magistrate. The appellant was arrested on the spot. The complainant Iqbal Ahmad P.W.1 produced the application forms Exh.P.3 to Exh.P.6 which were taken into possession by the Magistrate, Formal F.I.R. Exh.P.W.4/4 was registered at the Police Station.
3. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined 4 witnesses P.W.1, Iqbal Ahmad and Iqbal alias Nanna P.W.2 supported the case of the prosecution as detailed above. Yar Muhammad P.W.3 stated that it was the duty of the appellant to supply application forms to the public free of charge.
P.W.4 Ghaus Bakhsh S.I. Also supported the prosecution case. The appellant when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the demand as well as the acceptance of the illegal gratification for providing the forms to the P. Ws. As far the recovery of bribe money from him, he stated that when he came from the room of the Sub-Divisional Officer, he found Iqbal Ahmad, P.W.1 sitting on his table. The currency notes were put in the drawer of his table by P.W.1 in his absence. He produced Khadim Hussain and Rahim Bakhsh in his defence. D.W.1 supported the plea raised by appellant.
D.W.2, however, stated that the appellant had succeeded Ashiq Clerk who tried his best to get the transfer cancelled and on his failure, he threatened that he would not allow the appellant to work as Sub-Divisional Clerk.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts; that Iqbal Ahmad P.W.1 and Iqbal alias Nanna P.W.2 are not reliable witnesses; that the statement of the decoy witnesses; is not supported by any independent evidence that the raiding Magistrate as well as constable who had given the signal have not been produced by the prosecution. He furher submitted that in the circumstances of the case the possibility that the tainted money was planted, cannot be excluded.
' As against this learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court on the ground that P.W.1 and P.W.2 having no enmity with the appellant, their evidence does not merit rejection and can be safely relied upon without any corroboration.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. I find that Iqbal Ahmad P.W.1, Iqbal alias Nanna P.W.2 and Ghaus Bakhsh S.I., P.W.4 have fully supported the prosecution case. Ghaus Bakhsh P.W. Has stated that in his view Javaid Saleem appellant took out the bribe money from the pocket of his shirt and put the same in the drawer, from ,where, it was taken out by the Magistrate. This witness was subjected to cross-examination but nothing advantageous to the appellant came out. The learned cdUnsel has also failed to point out any enmity of the prosecution witness with the appellant. The witnesses have successfully stood the test of cross-examination. The non-production of B the Magistrate in the circumstances of the case would not be fatal to the prosecution inasmuch as, the learned trial Court in its order, dated 24-3-1981 has given cogent reasons for not following any further adjournment to the prosecution for producing this witness. I have considered the evidence adduced in defence. I find that the same does not rebut the prosecution evidence.
6. For what has been stated above, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and as such, the conviction recorded by the trial Court under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 has to be maintained. Coming to the sentence I find that the occurrence took place in the year, 1977. The petitioner has suffered agony of protracted trial and has lost the job. In these circumstances, it would not be proper to send him to jail particularly when the sentenc awarded to him being one month is a short one. In my opinion a fin of Rs,600 in default thereof, one month R.I. Would meet the accordingly. The fine shall be paid by 15-10-1983.
' Sentence altered. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.