' This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha/Faisalabad Division, whereby he on 12-7-1984 convicted Zulfiqar All appellant under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to imprisonment till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs,1,000, in default thereof to further R.I. For two months.
2. The appellant was working as H.V.C. In the Office of Irrigation Department, Jhang. The charge against him was that he demanded and accepted Rs,50 as illegal gratification from Muhammad Siddiq for issuing stay order in an appeal Siraj Din v. Ilam Din etc. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case prosecution examined 4 witnesses. Muhammad Siddiq P.W. 1 appeared to prove demand as well as acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant from him. Rana Aman Ullah Khan, Inspector P.W.3 and Muhammad Munir Laghari, Magistrate P.W.4 appeared to prove the recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant. They supported the prosecution case. Ch. Farzand Ali, S.E. , Irrigation and Power, P.W.2 stated that in his presence, Sub-Circle Officer had taken into possession photostat copies Exhs.P.E. To P.H. From the official record of the appeal. The rest of the evidence is of formal rature.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all incriminating circumstances.
In reply to question, as to why the case against him? He stated:- "Siddiq P.W. Visited me with an appeal which was in the name of his father. He has no power of attorney from his father, the appellant. He was not accompanied by an Advocate. Siddiq requested me again and again that I should help him in securing stay order in appeal. I advised him that he may either produce the appellant or an Advocate or himself appear with Power-ofAttorney/DCO for this purpose. I refused to help him in the matter of issue of stay order. The complainant misconceived that I am siding with the other party. I got no bribe money from the complainant.
Muhammad Ishaq Contractor of Irrigation Department is cc-villagers of the ccmplainant. Akram who is presently Chairman, Union Council Chak No, 342 took loan of Rs,50 from me one month before the raid. The complainant came and he gave me Rs,50 saying that Akram had sent his money. I received it. At that time Muhammad Iqbal Assistant Divisional Reader, and six publicmen were present and amongst them were Abdul Hamid, Lambardar and another Abdul Majid. Ch. Farzand Ali P.W. Was also preser t there. The Irrigation Department Officials who are my enemies and Muhammad Ishaq Contractor and Siddiq P.W. Through conspiracy implicated me."
' In defence he produced 3 witnesses. Abdul Majid D.W.1 stated that on the day of raid, his remission case was pending before XEN, Irrigation Jhang. At about 11 a.m. Or 12 o'clock, he was sitting in the office room of the appellant. Abdul Majid, Farzand Ali, Overseer and three or four others persons were also sitting in the same room. The complainant came there. He tendered a fifty-rupee note to the appellant saying that this is that money which Abdul Rahim had borrowed from the appellant.
The appellant received the money and put it in his pocket. Then the Magistrate came and recovered the note from the appellant. The appellant produced the currency note before the Magistrate saying that the same was giver to him as return of loan. Muhammad Akram D.W.2 stated that at the time of raid he was at Ayub Chauk Jhang. The appellant met him. He requested him for a of Rs,50 which was paid to him (the witness). After 25 days he paid Rs,50 to the complainant and directed him to pass on the same to the appellant as re-payment of the loan.
Abdul Majid D.W. Stated that in his presence, the complainant came and gave Rs,50 to the appellant saying that the money was sent to him by Ch. Muhammad Akram D.W.2 as return of loan.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Magistrate had not seen the passing on of the tainted currency notes to the appellant; that the Magistrate had not heard the conversation between the appellant and the complainant at the time of raid; that the complainant is not reliable witness; that Muhammad Siddiq complainant has not made consistent statement; and that from the statement of D.Ws. And Farzand Ali P.W.2, it appears that Rs,50 were received by the appellant not as illegal gratification but the money was towards payment of loan. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the trial Court.
6I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the appellant being not only proved but also an admitted fact, the material question for consideration and determination is as to whether the same were received by him as illegal gratification or not. I find that the Magistrate and the Inspector neither see the money changing hands nor heard any conversation between the complainant and the appellant. So far as the nature of transaction is concerned, statement of Muhammad Siddiq, complainant alone remains in field. He being a decoy witness, it -would not be in accordance with the safe administration of justice to place implicit reliance on his uncorroborated testimony because, in the circumstances of the case, the reasonable possibility of the defence version that the currency note was received by him as return of loan, cannot be excluded. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. Giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charge. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.