' This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore whereby he on 10-3-1976 convicted Muhammad Nasim Akhtar, appellant under section 161, P.P.C.
And section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to imprisonment till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs,500 in default thereof further R.I. For six months.
2. The appellant was a Clerk in Treasury Office, Lahore. The charge against him was that he demanded and accepted Rs,30 as illegal gratification from Muhammad Aslam P.W.2. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case prosecution examined three witnesses. Muhammad Aslam P.W.2 appeared to prove demand as well as acceptance of the tainted currency notes from him by the appellant as illegal gratification. Muhammad Saglain Magistrate, P.W.1, Abdul Ghani, Inspector A.C.E. P.W.3 were produced to prove acceptance by and recovery of the tainted currency notes from the appellant.
They supported the prosecution case.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant denied all incriminating circumstances.
While admitting the recovery of tainted currency notes from him, he stated that the complainant had given him Rs,30 on the pretext that he had to go abroad and had to deposit fee. In defence he produced four witnesses Muhammad Ejaz Accounts Clerk D.W.1 stated that in January, 1974 he was working as Accounts Clerk and used to sit alongwith the accused in the same room. The intervening distance between his chair and that of the accused was about two feet. A little while before, the raid the complainant in this case had come to the accused and asked the accused to fill in the challan forms and also offered Rs,30 for the purpose of the deposit in the State Bank. The accused declined to receive the amount and the challan forms, saying that it was not his duty to deposit on his behalf in the Bank. The 'complainant insisted and the accused continuously refused to accede to his request. The complainant based his request on the plea that he had to go abroad and was very busy. After shortwhile the accused was summoned by the Treasury Officer through a peon. The accused left the room and the complainant followed him. After about 15 minutes, he came to know that the raid had been conducted upon the accused. The witness further stated that about two weeks before the raid the complainant had an altercation with the appellant over the filling in of the challan forms. Muhammad Umar Accounts Clerk D.W. 2 made almost same statement, Qazi Muhammad Saeed Record Clerk D.W.3 stated that the file of case Muhammad Iqbal v. Kaniz Fatima and others could not be traced out by him. Muhammad Latif Reader D.W.4 stated that the lower Court record was sent back to the Court of Mr. Atta Muhammad Naz, Rent Controller, Lahore after decision of the appeal. The appellant tendered Exh.D.A. His statement in the case Muhammad Iqbal v. Nayyar Kaniz Fatima and Exh.D.B. The judgment in that case.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; that the prosecution witnesses are not reliable; that there is a reasonable possibility of the plea taken by the accused being true; that in judgment Exh.D.B. The learned Rent Controller found Muhammad Aslam complainant to be a clever person and that since the appellant had appeared as a witness against the complainant, therefore, he was falsely involved in the case in hand. Conversely 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 recovery of the tainted currency notes from the appellant being not only a proved but also an admitted fact. The material question for consideration and determination is as to whether the same was received as illegal gratification or not. As far the nature of transaction, I find that the Magistrate and the Sub-Inspector did not hear any conversation between the appellant and the complainant at the time of raid and as such statement of Muhammad Aslam alone remains in field. He is not only a decoy witness but it stands proved from documents Exh.D.A. And Exh.D.B. That the appellant had appeared as a witness against him on 20-6-1973 i,e, about more than six months before the raid. In these circumstances the possibility A that the complainant might have passed on the money to the appellant on some pretext for involving him in the case cannot be excluded. I am of the view that in the peculiar circumstances of the case it would be unsafe to place implicit reliance on his uncorroborated statement.
7. For what has been stated above, giving him the benefit of doubt the appellant is acquitted of the charges.