' This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Bahawalpur, whereby he on 20-7-1981 convicted Rashid Ahmad appellant under section 165-A, P.P.C. Read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to six months' R.I. And a fine of Rs,200 in default thereof to further R.I. For four months.
2. The charge against the appellant was that he while posted as Reader to Ziladar, on 13-8-1978 in collusion with Ziladar All Ahmad Hassan (co-accused for whose prosecution, no sanction was granted, instead departmental action was proposed against him) demanded and accepted Rs,50 as bribe from Tahir All complainant for making favourable report on his application for loan from bank. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses.. Rao Tahir Ali complainant P.W. I appeared to prove demand by co-accused and acceptance of the bribe money by the appellant and his co-accused, Ahmad Hassan, Naib-Tehsildar P.W.2, Muhammad Luqman, Head Clerk P.W.3 and Syed Kausar Abbas Sub-Inspector Anti-Corruption P.W.4 were produced to prove the recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant. 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. He, however, could not deny the recovery of the tainted money from him. He did not lead any evidence in defence.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that since no charge under section 165-A, P.P.C.
With regard to abetment of an offence of bribe punishable under section 165-A, P.P.C. Was framed against the appellant, therefore, he could not have been convicted for this offence. Conversely, the learned A.A.-G. 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 conviction of the appellant under section 165-A, P.P.C. Read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is liable to be set aside on the short legal ground that no charge of abetment punishable under section 165-A, P.P.C. Was framed against him. It is worthy notice that the prosecution case was that the bribe was demanded and accepted by the co-accused. The complainant P.W.1 has clearly stated that All Ahmad Hassan Ziladar after having accepted the tainted currency notes from him as bribe had passed on the same to the appellant for purchase of Ghee for him. For all these reasons I am convinced that the prosecution, has failed to prove even abetment punishable under section 165-A, P.P.C. Giving him the benefit of doubt, he is acquitted of the charges. He is on bail. He stands discharged of the bail bond.