Munir Hussain, Copyist in the Office of District and Sessions Judge, Sialkot, was convicted, on 28-5- 1970, by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore, 'under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and a fine of Rs.250 or in default in payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.
2. Tassaddaq Hussain complainant (P.W.1) had submitted application Exh. P.A., on 22-6-1967, for the supply of a copy of the judgment of the District Judge, Sialkot, dated 20-6-1967. He contacted the appellant several tunes who put him of and ultimately demanded Rs.10 as illegal gratification. The complainant informed Muhammad Aslam, S.I. A.C.E. The Sub-Inspector submitted application Exh.
P.D., on 11-7-1967, to the A.D.M. He deputed Mr. Sajid Javed Akbar, Magistrate (P.W. 5), to supervise the raid. The raid was conducted the same day. Tasaddaq Hussain complainant, the Magistrate and Muhammad Aslam, Sub-Inspector A.C.E. Were the members of the raiding party. The Magistrate recorded the statement of Tassaddaq Hussain complainant Exh. P.B. The complainant handed over the currency note P. 1 to the Magistrate who returned the same to the complainant for passing on to the appellant. The complainant was sent inside the room of the appellant while other members of the raiding party including the Magistrate stood near the window. The Magistrate could see the transaction through the window. Within the view of the Magistrate, the complainant passed on the currency note to the appellant who placed the same underneath the inkpot stand.
On receiving the signal, the members of the raiding party entered the room. The Magistrate introduced himself to the appellant. The Magistrate recovered the currency note P. 1 from underneath the inkpot stand. He recorded the statement of the appellant Exh. P.H. And the appellant declined to put down his signatures underneath the statement. Magistrate recorded the statement of Tassaddaq Hussain complainant and Muhammad Aslam, Sub-Inspector. The application Exh. P.R. And the incomplete copy of the judgment Exh. P.E. 1-4 were taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P .F. After completing the raid report, the Magistrate handed it over alongwith the other documents to the Sub-Inspector for further investigation. The appellant was challaned after the investigation.
3. The prosecution examined five witnesses in support of its case. Tassaddaq Hussain complainant (P.W.1), Muhammad Aslam Sub-Inspector (P.W. 2) and Mr. Sajid Javed Akbar, Magistrate (P.W.5) supported the prosecution case. The rest were the formal witnesses. Ashiq Hussain, Muhammad Sarwar and Muhammad Mushtaq P.Ws. Were, however, given up as having been won-over.
4. The accused denied the recovery and the prosecution allegations. He admitted that he was working as Copyist in the Sessions Court in July, 1967. He denied to have demanded illegal gratification from the complainant for the supply of copy. He further denied to have received illegal gratification from Tassaddaq Hussain complainant on 11-7-1967. He admitted that the Magistrate recovered the currency note from underneath inkpot stand but added that the raiding Inspector had pushed him into that room from the Verandah. He admitted that application Exh. P.A. And copy of judgment Exh. P. E. 1-4 were taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P.F. He attributed the case to party faction, due to injustice of the Magistrate and on account of enmity with the complainant.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant took me through the evidence. He contended that while standing outside the room the Magistrate could not see the passing of the bribe money through the gauze were of the window and the Magistrate had made an incorrect statement. He further submitted that in case the Magistrate had seen the appellant placing the currency note underneath the inkpot stand he would have immediately recovered it from underneath the inkpot stand instead of asking the appellant about the illegal gratification. He also stated that the defence witnesses were the natural persons and their statements could not be rejected as they were public servants.
6. There is nothing on the record to show that Tassaddaq Hussain complainant or Sajid Javed Akbar, Magistrate had any sort of ill-will towards the appellant. Both of them were disinterested persons. The complainant had submitted that application for the supply of a copy and it was quite natural for him to meet the appellant. He met the appellant several times but on each occasion the appellant put him of with one excuse or the other. Ultimately, on 10-7-1967, the appellant when contacted by the complainant, demanded Rs.10 as illegal gratification for the supply of the copy.
The complainant told the appellant to prepare the copy and promised to make the payment. On the complaint of Tassaddaq Hussain complainant raiding party was organized. The raiding party comprised the Magistrate, the complainant and the Sub --Inspector. The complainant was sent into the room where the appellant was sitting. The Magistrate stood close to the window and himself saw the passing of the currency note. He also saw the appellant placing the currency note underneath the inkpot stand. On receiving the signal, the members of the raiding party entered the room and recovered the currency note from underneath the inkpot stand. Application Exh. P.A., which was submitted by Tassaddaq Hussain complainant for the supply of copy alongwith the incomplete copy of the judgment of the District Judge were taken into possession. I cannot accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant that while standing outside the window, the Magistrate could not see passing of the bribe money. As stated by the Magistrate he was close to the window and he could see through the cause were. He also saw the appellant placing the money underneath the inkpot stand. After entering the room it was quite natural for the Magistrate to ask the appellant about the illegal gratifi--cation and when the appellant denied to have received the money the complainant stated that the money was lying underneath the inkpot stand from where it was recovered. I cannot accept the statements of the three defence witnesses as against the statement of the Magistrate who was absolutely a disinterested person. One of the defence witnesses was a clerk of Court while D.W. 2 was a copyist in the same Branch and the third was Ahmad. They were the colleagues of the appellant and for that reason also their statements cannot be accepted. Even the appellant had named these witnesses in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. These three witnesses were cited by the prosecution but were given up as having been won-over. There was overwhelming evidence against the appellant and he was rightly held guilty of offences under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The case is pending against the appellant for the last more than eleven years.
He faced the trial for nearly three years. His appeal is pending in this Court for the last more than eight A years and for these reasons while dismissing the appeal, I reduce his sentence of imprisonment to already undergone. The sentence of fine is, however, maintained and in default in payment of fine he shall suffer imprisonment as awarded by the learned Special Judge.
S. G. D. Conviction maintained.