' This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Senior Special Judge Anti-Corruption whereby he on 7-6-1978 convicted Sana Ullah appellant under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to 1 1/2 years' R.I.
2. The appellant was working as a peon in the Office of the Canal Officer of Gogra Division, Faisalabad. The charge against him was that he demanded and then accepted Rs, 50 as illegal gratification from Nazir Ahmad P.W. In order to help him in the matter of irrigation. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution produced three witnesses.Nazir Ahmed complainant appeared to prove demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant. Arshad Ali Shah S.I. P.W.2 and Sardar Alam Khan Magistrate P.W.3 were produced to prove recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. In defence he produced three witnesses.
5. I have gone through the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State. I find that the Magistrate and the Circle Officer neither saw the passing on of the tainted currency notes to the appellant nor did they hear any talk between the complainant and the appellant at the time of raid and as such the statement of complainant alone remains in the field. I further find that the tainted currency notes have not been recovered from the appellant. The Magistrate stated that he found g.c. Notes in the first of the appellant who on seeing him put the same in his mouth and swa llowed the same. The statement of the Magistrate that the g.c. Notes were in the hand of the appellant cannot be believed because he could not identify the notes when the same were in the first of the appellant. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the tainted currency notes have not been recovered from the appellant. In the circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to place implicit reliance on the uncorroborated statement of the complainant.
For what has been stated above, giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charge.