' This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore Camp at Sialkot, whereby he on 28-5-1984, convicted Muhammad Razzaq appellant under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to 6 months' R.I. And a fine of Rs,1,000, in default thereof 11 months' R.I. On each count with the direction that the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The appellant was a Patwari. The charge against him was that he demanded Rs,300, received Rs,100 before and Rs,200 at the time of raid as illegal gratification from Muhammad Jehangir complainant, P.W.1. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case prosecution examined 4 witnesses. Muhammad Jehangir P.W.1 was produced to prove demand as well as acceptance of illegal gratification from him by the appellant. Raja Muhammad Nawaz Magistrate P.W.2 and Hakim Ali S.I. A.C.E. P.W.4 were produced to prove the acceptance by and recovery of the tainted currency notes from the appellant. They supported the prosecution case. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances and raised plea of false implication on account of suspicion of the complainant that he had some link with his wife. In defence he produced 4 witnesses. Ghulam Hussain D.W.1 stated that he alongwith his brothers had purchased 60 Kanals and 16 Marlas of land on 3-1-1982 from Aftab Sohail and others. The land was under cultivation of Allah Ditta and Ali Muhammad tenants and that Allah Ditta had filed a suit for possession by pre-emption against them. Allah Ditta D.W.2. Made almost similar statement. He added that he had approached the appellant for obtaining the copy of 'Fard' but he was taken away by the police. The witness produced certified copy of the pre-emption suit Exh.D.W.2/1 filed by him against Ghulam Hassan relatable to the land purchased by Ghulam Hassan and others. Akbar All D.W.3 stated that the marriage of Jehangir P.W.1 was performed on 9-4-1982. The appellant used to live in the house of the in-laws of the complainant. After about 11 weeks of the marriage, the complainant sent back his wife to his in- laws and that hot words were exchanged by him with the appellant. At that time the complainant had said to the appellant that he had heard of his liaison with his wife. Abdul Latif P.W.4 stated that at the time of raid he was present with the appellant in the Patwar Khana. Muhammad Jehangir came there and asked about Mazhar Hussain Patwari of his Halqa who had gone out. The appellant remained sitting with him. In the meantime, Muhammad Jehangir came and placed folded currency notes near the table. He further stated that he had protested at that time. In defence two documents i,e, Nikahnama of the complainant dated 9-4-1982 and copy of 'Roznamcha Waqiati' dated 2-5-1982 were also tendered.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts; that it is a case of mala fide raid; that the motive for acceptance of illegal gratification did not exist as the land had already been sold away through registered sale-deed dated 3-1-1982; that immediately after the occurrence the Magistrate did not record the full statement of the appellant and did not give him opportunity to explain the recovery of tainted money; that the plea raised by the appellant in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Stands supported by the reliable defence evidence and that in the circumstances of the case, the possibility that the tainted currency notes were placed near table by the complainant in order to falsely involve the appellant cannot be excluded. 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 complainant has stated that the appellant had not only demanded but also accepted the tainted currency notes from him as illegal gratification; that the complainant has stated that after having received the tainted currency notes from him as illegal gratification, the appellant put the same in the pocket of his shirt; that the Magistrate and the S.I., A.C.E. Saw the appellant taking out the money from the pocket of his shirt and placing the same on the table; that it was after the introduction with the Magistrate that the appellant took out tainted currency notes from his pocket; that the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the appellant gives rise to the statutory presumption that the same will be received by him as illegal gratification; that the complainant had not serious enmity with the appellant to involve him falsely in the case that the Magistrate and the S.I. Have successfully stood the test of cross-examination and I do not see any inherent infirmity in their evidence. The defence evidence is not strong enough to rebut prosecution case and its evidence. In view of the statement of the Magistrate that the appellant had taken out the tainted money from the pocket of his shirt, there is no reasonable possibility of the defence evidence that the money was placed by the complainant near the desk, being true. For all these reasons, I am convinced that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant. The sentence awarded to him is also not excessive.
7. For what has been stated above, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall surrender himself before the trial Court immediately. The trial Court shall also issue warrants for his arrest and detention. 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.