1. This appeal under section 410 Cr.P.C. Read with section 10 of Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958 is directed against the judgment, dated 7th July, 1980 of Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Hyderabad whereby he convicted the appellant Ghulam Hyder under section 161 C.P.C: read with section 5(2) of Act of 1947 end sentenced him to suffer R.I. For 18 months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000 (one thousand) or in default to undergo R.I. For three months more.
2. The case of prosecution is that appellant was City Surveyor at Matli. He demanded Rs. 200 as bribe from complainant Abdul Same Khan for mutation and issuing of extract of Plot No. 1187 and house No. 113. However, deal was settled at Rs.170. He accepted Rs.70 as part payment on 25-9-1977, and remaining amount Rs.100 as tainted money was paid to him on 29-11-1977 which he passed to shop-keeper Abdul Razak. The case was registered on 29-11-1977 at 8-30 a.m. The charge was framed on 28-12-1978 to which appellant pleaded not guilty. The case proceeded and applicant was convicted.
2. Prosecution in support of the case examined Abdul Razak Exh. 2, Abdul Shakoor Exh.3, Abdul Ahmed Exh.11 and Muhammad Shafi Exh.13.
3. Appellant in his statement under section 342 Cr.P.C. Exh.17 denied the allegations. He did not examine any witness in his defence.
4. P.W.1 Abdul Razak has stated that appellant used to visit his store. On 29-11-1977 Abdul Samad and Abdul Shakoor came to his shop and gave 10 notes of Rs.10 domination to appellant who Passed on these notes and asked him to give one currency note of Rs.100 in exchange. In the meanwhile trap party including Magistrate arrived and secured those notes from him and Mashirnama was prepared.
5. P.W.2, Abdul Shakoor is Mashir. He has stated that Anti --Corruption Inspector, handed over Rs.100 to complainant Abdul Samad in his presence. The Magistrate was present and such Mashirnama was prepared which he produced Exh.4. Pie has stated that they went to Mukhtiarkar's office where they were told that appellant had gone to Abdul Razak's shop. They went to the above said shop where appellant was sitting who demanded money from Abdul Samad and he gave him tainted money which he passed to Abdul Razak shop-keeper and told him to exchange the notes. He has stated that he signalled the raid party and appellant was apprehended and amount was secured from Abdul Razak and such Mashirnama was prepared. He produced it as Exh.5. On personal search application of complainant and other documents were also secured from appellant, which he produced as Exh. 7, 8/1 to 8/5 and such Mashirnama Exh.9 was prepared. He has stated that complainant died in October, 1979. He produced death certifies of Abdul Samad as Exh.10.
6. P.W.3, Abdul Ahad stated that on 29-11-1977 he was Mukhtiarkar Hyderabad. He supervised the raid at the request of Anti-Corruption Inspector Shafi Rana who produced complaint and report. He stated that they came to Matli from where Mashirs Abdul Shakoor and Muhammad Latif were taken by Anti-Corruption Inspector. He has stated that Inspector gave Rs.100 to complainant in his presence and such Mashirnama Exh.4 was prepared and also he signed. They were informed that appellant was sitting at the shop of Abdul Razak. They sat near the hotel and after a while they received signal. They went to the shop and were told that appellant after receiving the money has passed on to Abdul Razak. On search tainted money was secured from Abdul Razak and such Mashirnama was prepared. He has stated that Inspector also secured some documents from appellant and such a Mashirnama Exh.9 was prepared. P.W.4 Muhammad Shafi is Investigating officer. He stated on 29-11-1977 he was Circle Officer, Hyderabad District. He recorded F.I.R. Exh.14 lodged by Abdul Samad. He has corroborated the version given by Magistrate. He has stated that they went and secured tainted money from Abdul Razak. He secured documents from appellant.
7. He prepared all the Mashirnamas as stated above. He produced sanction Exh.15. After completing investigation he sent papers to Circle Officer, Badin for submitting challan in Summary Military Court.
8. Mr. A.Q. Halepota contended that money was not secured from appellant, and the evidence of Abdul Razak, shop-keeper is not reliable as he is an accomplice. It has been argued that there is no evidence that appellant demanded money and conversation between appellant and complainant was not heard.
9. Mr. Makhdoom Abdul Wali appearing for the State supported the conviction and submitted that case has been proved against the appellant and he has been rightly convicted.
10. The appellant at the relevant time was public servant this has been disputed. The prosecution sanction has not been challenged. The enmity with Mashir Abdul Shakoor or with any other witnesses has neither suggested nor proved. The appellant in his statement under section 342 Cr.P.C. Statement as Exh. 17 stated that witnesses are related friends, therefore, they have implicated him. The relationship of witnesses not proved, shop-keeper Abdul Razak has implicated accused. It has also come on record that appellant after receiving money from complainant handed over to Abdul Razak and asked him to give one note of Rs.100 denomination. Abdul Shakoor Mashir supported the case. He stated that amount was paid to appellant by complainant on demand. As such there is evidence about demand and receiving the money, Appellant has not explained as to how tainted money was covered from Abdul Razak while he has present. The relevant 11ucuments including application of complainant Exh.7, allotment orders to were secured from the appellant in presence of Mukhtiarkar. The Evidence of prosecution witnesses could not be shaken in cross-examination. During trial complainant died and could not be examined. The case has been proved against the appellant and he has rightly been convicted. The appeal is dismissed.
11. Now I come to the sentence. A.Q. Halepota argued that appellant is a young man and his case was sent up to summary Military Court and he already remained in Jail 3 months and benefit of section 382-B Cr. P. C. Was also not "need to him. He alternatively pleaded for mercy. This is a case of Appellant is a young man. The appellant has suffered the agony protracted litigation for about 9 years. The petitioner was challaned in 1977. The case was decided by the trial Court in July 1980.
12. Appellant preferred appeal in 1980 which took place more than 5 years to be finally disposed of.
13. The appellant has undergone the mental torture for number of years and spent lot of money on litigation.
14. The State Counsel has not submitted that leniency be shown.
15. For the above reasons the case is fully made out for reduction of sentence. His case was sent to Summary Military Court and he has remained in Jail for 3 months. Therefore, the sentence is reduced to already under gone. The sentence of fine is maintained.