1. Appellant Abdul Rahim was a clerk in the office of Sub-Registrar, Mirpur Khas in November, 1983. He is alleged to have demanded Rs.500 as illegal gratification from one Muhammad Idrees Memon, a businessm an in Mirpur Khas, for issuing to him a true copy of registered sale-deed in respect of an agricultural land sold by him and his brother Muhammad Farooq to Noor Muhammad and others, and actually took from him a settled sum of Rs.150 on 20-11-1983. He is alleged to have been caught red-handed accepting the bribe money Rs.150 during the course of a trap organized by the Local Circle Officer, Anti-Corruption, on a report made to him by the aggrieved person Muhammad Idrees. The trap was supervised by a IIIrd Class Magistrate, Mr. Parshotamdas and the detection was witnessed by mashirs Mir Muhammad and one another. The appellant was tried in the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, {{PAGE CUT}} Hyderabad, on the charge of an offence punishable under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The learned trial Judge convicted him of the aforesaid offence nd sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and ay fine Rs.1,000 or suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months ore in default by judgment, dated 1-8-1985. The appellant has preferred his appeal against his conviction and the sentence awarded on him. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the alleged money was not recovered from the person of appellant but it as recovered from a drawer of a table in office and probability of .Lanting of money on the appellant could not be ruled out in view of he fact that the appellant has declined to issue a certified copy of the ale-deed to the complainant Muhammad Idrees without the order of the ub-Registrar on the application for copies and their having been ltercation between them on that account. He has further contended hat the trap episode is not free from suspicions as a IIIrd Class agistrate involved in an enquiry pending with the Circle Officer. Nti- Corruption, was associated to supervise the trap and selected ersons were made mashirs. He has contended that the Special Judge as not considered the evidence in its real perspective and has accepted ncriminating part of evidence of witnesses and discarded that part of heir evidence which was favourable to the appellant/accused and such eliance has been placed on the statement of the appellant obtained rom him at the time of his apprehension, which was not admissible in vidence. The learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment f the learned Special Judge, arguing that the evidence adduced by he prosecution was sufficient to have warranted conviction of the ppellant. Prosecution case rests on the evidence of complainant Muhammad drees (P.W.1), mashir Mir Muhammad (P.W.-2), Sub- Registrar Gopichand P.W.3), IIIrd Class Magistrate Mr. Parshotamdas (P.W.-4), complainant's rother Muhammad Farooq (P.W.-5), Ghulam Raza a Senior Clerk in e office of Sub-Registrar (P.W.-6), and the Circle Officer, Antiorruption, Mr. Atique Ahmed (P.W.7). The appellant did not adduce ny evidence in his defence. He examined only himself and made denial the allegations. The complainant Muhammad Idrees has alleged that e appellant had demanded Rs.500 for issuing a copy of the sale-deed ecuted by him and his brother Muhammad Farooq and ultimately reduced e demand to Rs.150 and he delivered to him Rs.150 during the course the trap organized by Anti- Corruption personnel on his making report them and the tainted money was recovered from the drawer of his ble in presence of Mashir Mir Muhammad and a Magistrate. Mashir Mir uhammad has supported the recovery of the tainted money of Rs.150 om a drawer of the table of the appellant but he has stated that the oney was kept there by the complainant Muhammad Idrees. The evidence the Magistrate Pershotamdas and the Investigating Officer Atique hmed is that the tainted money was recovered from a drawer of the ble of the appellant. Their further evidence is that the application de the complainant for copy of the sale-deed and two stamped papers so were recovered from the table of the appellant. The evidence of mplainant's brother Muhammad Farooq is that he had gone to the flee of the Sub Registrar to obtain a copy of the sale-deed and he :d come across a clerk by name Haji who demanded Rs.500 for issuing {{PAGE CUT}} the required copy. The evidence of the remaining two witnesse Gopichand Sub-Registrar and Ghulam Raza, Senior Clerk is that th appellant was serving as a clerk in the office and was dealing wit supply of copies of documents which were registered in the office The prosecution case is that demand of Rs.500 was made f supplying a copy of the sale-deed and the amount of Rs.150 was actuall accepted by the appellant for that purpose. Of course, the appella was a clerk in the office of Sub-Registrar and he was dealing with t matters of supply of copies of the documents registered in the offi and application for copies made by the complainant's brother Faro and two blank stamped papers provided probably for copying out the on the registered sale-deed were secured from his table. But t grievance of the complainant party was that initially a clerk by na Haji had made demand for money. This fact has been deposed to the complainant's brother Muhammad Farooq and also by the complaina himself. The appellant is alleged to have appeared in picture when t complainant Muhammad Idrees went to the office of the Sub-Registra The report of demand of the bribe money was made by complaina Muhammad Idrees to Circle Officer, Anti- Corruption, against t appellant. Trap for catching hold of the bribe taker was organiz against the appellant. However, the bribe money intended to be deliver to the appellant was recovered from the drawer of the table of t appellant. The complainant Muhammad Idrees has no doubt implicat the appellant that he had taken the bribe money and then placed it the drawer of his table but evidence of the mashir Mir Muhammad that the money was placed in the drawer by Muhammad Idrees. T learned trial Judge has considered this part of his evidence as obligi statement but there is nothing on the record that the witness was any way obliged to favour the appellant. Neither the Magistrate the Investigating Officer saw the appellant taking bribe money fr complainant and keeping it in drawer. The complainant had admit that he had altercation with the appellant when he had visited him 1 before the eventful day and there is probability of keeping the br money in the drawer by the complainant on the appellant's refusing accept it. Recovery of bribe/tainted money from drawer of the table the accused in identical circumstances was not considered as tot incriminating, evidence in the cases: Muhammad Yousuf v. The St 1969 P Cr.L J 1408 and Syed Safdar Ali v. The State 1985 SC M 1941. Thus, the evidence of the complainant and witnesses did prove that the bribe money was actually taken by the appellant. Regards the statement of the appellant before the Third Class Magistra it did not amount to be a confession as only a First Class Magistr or a Magistrate second Class specially empowered can record a confess under section 164, Cr.P.C. Confession of an accused recorded by First Class Magistrate in a trap case of corruption of like nature the spot was not relied upon by a Full Bench of Lahore High Cour a case Ghulam Abbas v. The State 1968 P Cr.L J 17. Moreover, trap in a corruption case is generally laid after registration of crime. The statement of an accused made during the trap operatio taken/recorded during the course of investigation in presence of investigating officer and such statement is supposed to have b made in the state of nervousness and perplexity and even under and it does not constitute the voluntary statement of incrimina nature. Even if the statement is of such a nature that it appears t a voluntary one, it is to be considered in its entirety rather tha its parts. The statement of the appellant, read as a whole is exculpatory as he has stated that the amount delivered to him was paid as copying fees etc. The learned Judge seems to have attached undue weight to the statement made by the appellant to the Third Class Magistrate and considered it as incriminating piece of evidence. There was no other evidence against the appellant, except that of alleged securing of tainted money from a drawer of his table and his statement made before the Magistrate which is not sufficient to prove guilt in a criminal offence.
2. For the reasons recorded above, the charge against the appellant is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, he is given benefit of doubt and is acquitted of the offence he was convicted of an sentenced for. His bail bond stands discharged. These are the reasons, for allowing the appeal by short order, dated 2-9-1986.