' This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha Division, Sargodha whereby he on 14-10-1985 convicted Malik Muhammad Khan appellant under section 161, P.P.C. And sentenced him to three months' R.I. And a fine of Rs,6,000 in default thereof three months' R.I.
' At the time of the admission of the appeal to regular hearing, this Court had issued suo motu notice for the enhancement of the sentence. I propose to dispute of this appeal and suo motu Criminal Revision No,593 of 1985 through single judgment.
2. The appellant was a Patwari. The charge against him was that he accepted Rs,500 as illegal gratification from Lal Khan appellant for supply of copy of revenue record. He denied the charge and claimed, to be tried.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution produced five witnesses. Lal Khan P.W.2 appeared to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification from him by the appellant. He stated that the appellant had demanded Rs,8,000 as illegal ,gratification for the supply of copy of revenue record.
He received Rs,7,500 before the raid and Rs,500 at the time of raid which were recovered from him by the Magistrate, Ch.Imtiaz Ahmed M.I.C. P.W.1 and Syed Zahoor Hussain Shah Inspector A.C.E. P.W.5 were produced to prove the acceptance of the tainted currency notes by and recovery thereof from the appellant. They stated that when they reached near the appellant, on receiving the appointed signal, the appellant stood up on seeing them. By that time, he was holding tainted money in his hands. He threw the same under Charpai lying nearby within their view. Bashir Ahmed P.W.3 and Umar Hayat P.W.4 were produced to prove that the appellant had received Rs,7,500 as illegal gratification from the complainant before the raid. They supported the prosecution case.
4. When examined under. Section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant denied all t'he incriminating circumstances. He raised plea of false implication. In defence he produced 4 witnesses. Ghulam Muhammad D.W.1 stated that since one Umra who belongs to the party of Lal complainant wanted the appellant to enter a false mutation and the latter had refused to oblige him, therefore, he was falsely involved in the case. Zulfiqar P.W.2 stated that he was present at the time of raid and that Lal complainant had thrown' the currency notes under a Charpai wherefrom the same were picked up by the raiding party. Muhammad Amir D.W.3 stated that he was present at the time of raid near the Patwarkhana. Lal complainant came there and while standing outside the Patwarkhana, he threw currency notes inside the Patwarkhana which fell under the cot. The raiding party then picked up the same and arrested the accused. The witness stated that he had told the Magistrate that he had apprised the Magistrate of the situation and that he had promised to release the accused.
Muhammad Khan also gave evidence on oath in disproof of the charge. He stated that he was innocent and had neither demanded nor received bribe money. He tendered mutation orders D.B.
And D.C.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; that the tainted currency notes were not recovered from the possession of the appellant, that the prosecution witnesses are not reliable and that the appellant has falsely been involved in the case at the instance of one Umra. Conversely the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
6. 1 have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. I find that the Magistrate and the Inspector A .C.E. Who are quite independent witnesses had seen the appellant holding the tainted currency notes in his hand and throwing the same under the cot where from the same were picked up by the raiding party. Lal Khan complainant had stated that the B appellant had received the tainted currency notes as illegal gratification from him. The Magistrate and the Inspector had no enmity with the appellant to involve him falsely in the case. They have successfully faced the test of cross-examination. The prosecution evidence does not suffer from infirmities such as material contradictions/discrepancies and dishonest improvements. In view of the statement of the Magistrate and the Inspector A.C.E. That they had seen the appellant throwing the tainted currency notes on the cot, the defence evidence that the tainted currency notes were thrown on the ground by Lal Khan complainant appears to be false. The defence evidence does not rebut the prosecution case and its evidence. The learned trial Court has given sound and cogent reasons in support of its decision. For all these reasons I am convinced that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant.
7. This brings me to the question of sentence. The learned counsel for the appellant has requested for leniency in the sentence. In the circumstances that the occurrence took place in the year 1983, that the appellant has suffered agony of trial, that he has lost his service and that he remained in jail for 20 days after his conviction, I do not desire to send him back to jail. The sentence of remaining imprisonment is, therefore, set aside. The fine of Rs,6,000 and sentence of three months'
R.I. In default thereof is however maintained. The appellant shall deposit the fine with the trial Court within two months from today failing which, the trial Court shall issue warrants for his arrest and detention in jail to serve out the sentence in default of the payment of fine.
8. Since there was no charge with regard to the acceptance of Rs,7,500 as illegal gratification before the raid, therefore, I do not feel inclined to enhance the sentence. The connected revision is disposed of accordingly.