' This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore whereby he on 13-10-1966 convicted Saeed Ahmad under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to one month R.I. And a fine of Rs, 200 in default thereof three months' R.I.
2. Although Saeed Ahmad has died during the pendency of the appeal, yet I proceed to decide the appeal on merits inasmuch as the appellant having also been sentenced to a fine of Rs, 200 the appeal does not abate under section 431, Cr.P.C.
3. The appellant was Loco-Shed Clerk, P.W.R. Faisalabad. The charge against him was that he demanded and accepted Rs, 15 as illegal gratification from Ghulam Rasul P.W.2. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses. Ghtrlam Rasool P.W.2 appeared to prove demand as well as acceptance of illegal gratification from him by the appellant. Niaz Muhammad P.W.4 stated that the appellant had received some money from Ghulam Rasool complainant. Mirza Muhammad Ibrahim Magistrate P.W.1 and Ch.Muhammad S.I. A.C.E. P.W.3 were produced to prove the recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.
5. When examined under ection 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. His plea was that he has not accepted any bribe from the complainant and that the money was put in his pocket stealthily. In defence he produced two witnesses.
6. Since Saeed Ahmed appellant has died and the appeal has not abated because of the sentence of fine so I have examined the evidence on file with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State. I find that the Magistrate and the S.I. A.C.E. Had not seen the appellant receiving tainted currency notes from the complainant; that there are discrepancies in the statement of the Magistrate and Niaz Muhammad P.W.4. The Magistrate stated that when he approached the appellant and introduced him, 'Niaz Muhammad appellant was already present there whereas from the statement of Niaz Muhammad, it appears that he was not present at the time of raid. At that time, he was at some distance from the spot and it was on receiving 'information from some one that he came back and found Magistrate present there; that in the circumstances of the case, the reasonable possibility that the tainted A currency notes might have been put in the pocket of the appellant by the complainant or someone else without the knowledge of the appellant cannot be excluded and that the fact of conscious acceptance of Rs, 15 the tainted currency notes by the appellant as illegal gratification is somewhat doubtful. For all these reasons 1 am of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant is, therefore, acquitted of the charge.
7. Before parting with the judgment, I feel constrained to observe that it is really unfortunate that the office has fixed this appeal after 18 years of its filing and as such the appeal could not be decided in the lifetime of the appellant. The inordinate delay in the disposal has also been occasioned by the omission on the part of the appellant, his counsel and his legal heirs to file application for the early hearing of the appeal. Had the appellant etc. Brought the delay to the notice of the High Court the appeal might have been disposed of within a year or two but for the reasons best known to them they did not bring the delay in fixation of the appeal to the notice of the High Court or the Registrar. The Deputy Registrar (Judi) to probe into the matter and submit his report to the Registrar of this Court who would take necessary action.