' This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Sargodha and Faisalabad Divisions with Headquarters at Sargodha whereby he on 3-2-1985 convicted Muhammad Arshad appellant under section 161, P.P.C. And sentenced him to one month's R.I. And a fine of Rs,2,000 in default thereof to further S.I.
2. The appellant was a police constable. The charge against him was that he demanded and accepted Rs,50 as illegal gratification from Abdul Hafeez P.W.4. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined four witnesses. Abdul Hafeez P.W. Appeared to prove demand as well as acceptance of illegal gratification from him by the appellant. Ghulam Nabi M.S.30 P.W.2, Gul Muhammad S.I. A.C.E. P.W.3 and Muhammad Shafi constable P.W.1 were produced to prove the recovery of tainted currency notes from him. They supported the prosecution case.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant while admitting the recovery of tainted currency notes from him explained that Abdul Hafeez complainant presented to him 50 rupee currency note alongwith registration book for the payment of fine in challans against him. In defence two witnesses were produced. Khurshid Umar D.W.1 supported the plea raised by the appellant. Muhammad Mukhtar constable D.W.2 produced inquiry report Exh.D.A. Conducted by Additional Superintendent Police, Sargodha against the appellant on this charge wherein the appellant was exonerated.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; that the passing on of the tainted money was not seen by the raiding party; that the raiding party did not hear any conversation between the appellant and the complainant at the time of raid and that there is a reasonable possibility that explanation given by the appellant might be true. 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 recovery of the tainted currency notes from the appellant being admitted fact, the material question for consideration and determination is as to whether the same were received by him as illegal gratification or not. I find that immediately after occurrence, the appellant had explained the recovery. He had stated that the money was given to him by Abdul Hafeez for payment of the fine to be imposed in challans against him and that he stuck to 'this statement at trial stage; that the members of the raiding party other than the complainant had not heard any conversation between the appellant and the complainant before the passing on of the tainted currency notes to the appellant, and as such, as for the nature of transaction, the statement of Abdul Hafeez complainant alone remains in field. He being a decoy witness, it would be unsafe to place implicit reliance on his uncorroborated testimony and that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, reasonable possibility that the explanation given by the appellant might be true cannot be excluded. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
' For what has been stated above, giving him the benefit of doubt, he is acquitted of the charge.