SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner formerly a Reader in the Court of Civil Judge, Lahore seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 10-10-1977, whereby the appeal filed by him against his conviction and sentence under section 161, P.P.C., read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, was dismissed.
2. The prosecution case against the petitioner was that in June, 1975 he was posted as Reader in the Court of titian Abdul Qayyum P.W. 4 Civil Judge, Lahore. Tahir Mobeen P.W.1, the complainant, a clerk in the High Court Registry at Lahore, was prosecuting an application for succession certificate filed by Mat. Nasim Begum, his relative. The matter was pending in that Court. The complainant was interested in obtaining earlier disposal of the matter and in getting short adjournments if at all they become necessary. For showing the file to him the petitioner allegedly asked for illegal gratification which the complainant reported to the Anti-Corruption Department. Mr. Muhammad Nasim Sipra, Magistrate and the currency notes of Rs.20 were handed over to the complainant who delivered it to the petitioner and the Magistrate got it recovered from under the pad on the table occupied by the petitioner on 7-6-1975 on which date the Presiding Officer of the Court happened to be on leave. The usual proceedings were taken and the petitioner was tried. His defence was that he, had neither demanded nor obtained any illegal gratification in that case which was a quarrel between him and the complainant over what the complainant considered to be a long adjournment granted in the case. He stated that he was falsely implicated due to the altercation which took place before the raid and that the tainted money was placed under the pad without his knowledge. In defence he produced seven witnesses to of them being Advocates and the Presiding Officer of the Court who was absent on the date.
3. The trial Court examined the entire evidence led by the prosecution as well as the defence and found the evidence of the Magistrate coupled with "the evidence of the complainant and contents of the raid report in that connection" sufficient and leaving no room for doubt that he had accepted illegal gratification. The learned Judge in the High Court also held that the case against the petitioner was proved beyond any doubt and the defence could not be given any weight primarily for the reason that the names of the defence witnesses were not suggested to any of the prosecution witnesses and when he was asked whether he will produce evidence he stated "if need be". Even in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. The petitioner did not give the name of any of the defence witnesses.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the defence evidence brought on record through the seven witnesses has not received the attention which it deserved and on that evidence the petitioner should have been held to have made out a case and the prosecution case should have failed. It is also contended that the complainant had admitted ultimately that he had a quarrel with the petitioner and had contradicted himself on various occasions thereby reducing altogether the worth of his statement. About the Magistrate supervising the raid it is siad that he neither heard the conversation nor saw the petitioner pocketing the money and in so far as he stated that the money was received by the petitioner and was placed by him under the pad on the table was directly against the defence evidence produced at the trial.
We have been taken through the record of the case and find that essentially it is a question of replacement of evidence which the learned counsel for the petitioner wants. The Magistrate who was supervising the raid and had to attend with care and particularity to every aspect of the transaction stated that "the complainant, within my view, took out the tainted g.c. Notes and handed over the same to the accused Reader. The accused received the tainted g.c notes and I felt as if he had then put the same into the pocket of his pant. I gave the A signal to other members of the raiding party and then myself entered the room. When I advanced towards the accused, the accused took out the tainted g.c. Notes from the pocket of his pant and put the same underneath the table pad". As regards the hearing of the conversation, the Magistrate said that "the accused asked the complainant about the work saying whether it was just or unjust, it would be got done. It is clear that the Magistrate had seen the passing of the money, placing of it under the pad and its recovery. In this context, his statement stands out. The defence witnesses produced to reduce his credibility were persons who casually observed the conduct of the parties unlike the Magistrate who had a specific duty to perform. Their observation for that reason would neither be complete nor necessarily to the point. Even the statements made by them suggest that at various stages that they saw various things happening while they were engaged in their own chores. The Courts have not used such a yardstick for preferring the statement of one witness over other as may be open to exception for objection on the legal plane. There is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.