' This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption (Central); Lahore, whereby he on 28-1-1978 convicted Sabir 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's R.I. And a fine of Rs,500, in default thereof to further R.I. For one year.
2. The appellant was working as Consumer Clerk, Office of S.D.O., Electricity WAPDA, Lahore Cantt.
The charge against him was that he demanded and then accepted Rs 350 as illegal gratification from Ghulam Rasul as a motive for sanctioning domestic electricity connection. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case prosecution examined 7 witnesses. Ghulam Rasool P.W.1 appeared to prove demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant from him. Zulfiqar All Toor, Magistrate, P.W.6 and Iqbal Hussain Shah, Circle Officer, P.W.7 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. While admitting the receipt of recovery of tainted currency notes from him, he stated: "One of my friends namely Iftikhar Ahmad had to get a matter printed. The complainant was known to me. I and my friend went to his printing press. After settling the bargain paid him money Rs,400 as advance money. A few days later my friend came to me and told that he did not want to get the matter printed by the complainant as he had settled somewhere else at lower rate. He, further told me that the complainant was not prepared to return the sum of Rs,400. I accompanied him to the complainant and after bringing pressure upon him he was made to agree to return Rs,350. He continued putting me off regarding payment of this amount and even had led a quarrel in the office."
' In defence he examined Iftikhar Ahmad D.W. 1 who supported the version of the appellant.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to prove that the tainted currency notes were accepted by the appellant as bribe money.
' 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. In order to prove that the tainted currency notes were passed on the appellant as bribe, the proseuction relied on the statement of Ghulam Rasool complainant and Zulfiqar Ali Toor, Magistrate, P.W.6. I find that the statement made by the Magistrate is somewhat ambiguous, inasmuch as, he stated: "The complainant asked the accused about his job with regard to his electricity connection. On this the accused told him that his work had been done and in token of proof he also shown him form Exh. P.W.1/3 which bears my initials. The complainant asked him that there should be no complaint from his side about his job which the accused responded in an affirmative manner. The accused handed over the form Exh. P.W. 1/3 to the complainant and received Rs,350 from him."
' I further find that the complainant has not supported the prosecution case, rather, he supported the version of the appellant. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case it would be highly unsafe to sustain the conviction on the statement of the Magistrate.
7. For what has been stated above, giving him the benefit of doubt the appellant is acquitted of the charge.