This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha, whereby he on 17-9-1985 convicted Noor Ahmad appellant under section 161, P.P.C. And sentenced him to R.I. And a fine of Rs.4,000 in default thereof further two months, R.I.
2. The appellant was a Dispenser in Civil Hospital, Sahiwal, District Sargodha. The charge against him was that he demanded and accepted Rs.100 from Muhammad Ashraf complainant P.W.3 as illegal gratification for the preparation of a copy of medico-legal certificate. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case prosecution examined three witnesses. Muhammad Ashraf P.W.3 appeared to prove demand as well as acceptance of illegal gratification from him by the appellant.
Muhammad Sadiq Inspector S.C.O. P.W.1 and Rao Tehseen Ahmad Magistrate P.W.2 were produced to prove the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the appellant. They supported the prosecution case.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant while admitting the recovery of the tainted currency notes, explained that he had neither demanded nor received the tainted currency notes and the fact of the matter was that the complainant had attempted to thrust the currency notes in his pocket. The raiding Magistrate reached there and arrested him without any justification. He further stated that the medical certificate was prepared by the medical officer and he had simply to prepare copy thereof and that he was not in a position to render any favour to the complainant. No witness was produced in defence.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution witnesses are not reliable; that the appellant was not in a position to help the complainant in any manner that the appellant had neither demanded nor accepted the illegal gratification and that the complainant was trying to thrust the money in the pocket of the appellant when the raiding Magistrate came and arrested him. Conversely the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced 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 are quite independent witnesses. They had no ill-will against the appellant. The Magistrate has clearly stated that he had recovered the tainted currency notes from the pocket of the shirt of the appellant. Muhammad Ashraf complainant had also no enmity with the appellant to falsely involve him in the case. He stated that the appellant had not only demanded the bribe from him but had also accepted the tainted currency notes as bribe money from him. In view of the statement of the Magistrate, there is no reasonable possibility of the defence version being true. The recovery of the tainted currency, notes from the appellant in the circumstances of the case also gives rise to the statutory presumption that the same were received by him from the complainant as illegal gratification. He has not been able to rebut this presumption. The fact that he could not render any favour to the complainant is not a valid ground for his acquittal. For all these reasons, I am convinced that the appellant has rightly been convicted. As far the sentence, I feel that leniency has already been shown to him by the trial Court.
7. For what has been said above, there being no merit, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall surrender himself before the trial Court immediately. The trial. Court shall also issue warrants for the arrest and detention of the appellant for serving out the sentence.