This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha and Faisalabad Divisions, whereby he on 5-10-1985 convicted Muhammad Abdullah appellant under section 161, P.P.C. And sentenced him to one month R.I. And a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default thereof one month R.I.
2. The appellant was a Patwari. The charge against him was that he demanded and accepted Rs.100 as illegal gratification from Mumtaz Ali P.W. 1 for the supply of the copy of a 'Fard'. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case prosecution examined 4 witnesses. Mumtaz Ali P.W. 1 appeared to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification from him by the appellant. Allah Bakhsh P.W. 2 stated that the appellant had also demanded and received illegal gratification from him. Rai Ahmad Yar, Circle Officer, A.C.E., P.W. 3 and Sardar Muhammad Munir Khan Laghari, Magistrate P.W.
4 were produced to prove the recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant. They supported the prosecution case.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. While admitting the recovery of tainted currency notes from him, he explained that the same were not the illegal gratification but a fee for the supply of the copies of revenue record to the complainant. In defence Ahmad Salim, Inspector Anti-Corruption was produced.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been involved in the case and that he had neither demanded nor received any illegal gratification from the complainant. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
6. I have considered the arguments made by the learned counsel for the parties with care I find that the Magistrate and the Inspector had not heard any conversation between the appellant and the complainant at the time; that when examined by the Magistrate immediately after the raid, the appellant had stated that the tainted currency note was received by him as copying fee; that he stuck to this statement at the time of recording his statement under section 342 Cr.P.C. And that appearing as a defence witness, he made almost similar statement. That being the position, the material question for determination is as to whether the tainted currency notes were received by him as illegal gratification or not. So far as the nature of the transaction is concerned, statement of Mumtaz Ali complainant alone remains in field. He being a decoy witness, it would be unsafe to place implicit reliance on his statement. The rule of prudence requires independent corroboration which I do not see in the case in hand.
7. For what has been stated above, giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charge.