' This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore (Camp at Sialkot) whereby he on 14-9-1983 convicted Noor Hussain appellant under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to one year R.I. And a fine of Rs, 5,000 in default thereof to further R.I. For six months.
2. The appellant was Patwari. The charge against him was that he demanded Rs, 500 but accepted Rs, 200 as illegal gratification from Abdul Haleem P.W.3. He pleaded not guilty.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined three witnesses. Ashiq Hussain Magistrate P.W.1, Muhammad Aslam Bhatti Inspector A.C.E. P.W.2 and Abdul Haleem complainant P.W.3 were produced to prove the demand, acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant from the complainant and the recovery of the tainted currency notes from him. They supported the prosecution case.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances including the recovery of the tainted currency notes from him. In defence he produced three witnesses. Allah Ditta D.W.1, Nazir Ahmad D.W.2 and Subeh Sadiq D.W.3 stated that it was in their presence that Abdul Haleem complainant came to the appellant and asked for a copy which the appellant could not supply whereon there ensued quarrel between them and that when the D.Ws. Interfered, the complainant threw some currency notes towards the appellant and went away.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as the complainant at trial stage has stated that the money was picked up by the Magistrate from the ground whereas the Magistrate and the Inspector stated that the money was recovered from, the pocket of the appellant. Learned counsel further submitted that in the circumstances of the case, the question of acceptance of bribe by the appellant from the complainant did not arise. 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 Magistrate and the Inspector who appear to be independent witnesses, having stood the test of cross-examination successfully, have stated that the tainted currency notes were recovered from the pocket of the appellant. I do not see any inherent infirmity in their statement.
The complainant also stated that just after the raid, the appellant demanded money from him as illegal gratification and that he passed on Rs, 200 to the appellant as illegal gratification. No doubt in his examination-in-chief the complainant did not state that the money was recovered from the pocket of the appellant, and had stated that the money was lying near the appellant when it was taken into possession by the raiding party but to my mind this appears to have been stated to oblige the appellant inasmuch as in Exh. P.M./5 which was recorded by the raiding Magistrate just after the occurrence the complainant had clearly stated:- {{URDU TEXT}} It is worth notice that the appellant refused to make any statement after the occurrence and that at the time of trial when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. He did not state that the money was picked up by the Magistrate from the ground. In view of the statement of Magistrate, Inspector and of the appellant recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. The statement of the complainant and of the defence witnesses that the money was taken into possession by the Magistrate from the ground appears to be a clear concoction. For all these reasons, 1 am convinced that the trial Court has rightly recorded the conviction. The sentence awarded to him is also not excessive.
7. For what has been stated above, there being no merit, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall surrender before trial Court immediately.