This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption (Central)
Camp at Multan whereby he on 25-5-1981 convicted Pervez Akhtar appellant under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to one year's R.I. And a fine of Ra.1,000 in default thereof to further R.I. For 3 months.
2. The appellant was a meter reader. The charge against him is that he accepted Rs.300 as illegal gratification from Abdul Salam P.W. 5 for reversing the reading of the meter. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses. Abdul Salam P.W. 5 and Iftikhar P.W. 3 appeared to prove the demand as well as acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant. Ghaus Bakhsh Sub-Inspector, F.I.A. P.W. 6 and Syed Muhammad Hussain M. I. C., P. W. 4 were produced to prove the recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant. The rest of the evidence is more or less o' formal nature. The witnesses have supported the prosecution case.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. He raised the plea of false implication. In defence he examined Shahid Ahsan D.W. 1 who stated that the appellant was involved falsely by Shafiq Muhammad Constable F.I.A and Abdul Salam complainant.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt; that Abdul Salam and Iftikhar Ahmad P.Ws. Are not reliable witnesses; that their evidence suffer from material contradictions/ discrepancies and that the Magistrate and the S.I. Had neither seen the passing on of the tainted currency notes to the appellant nor heard the talk which preceded the passing on of the money of the appellant.
Witnesses.-- The appellant did not care to explain the recovery of the tainted currency notes from him. He rather denied the recovery. The defence evidence is not strong enough to rebut the, prosecution case and falsifies its evidence. For all these reasons I am fully convinced that the prosecution having successfully brought home guilt to the appellant, the trial Court has rightly convicted him under section 161 P.P.C. And section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
6. Coming to the question of sentence, I feel inclined to alter the nature of sentence from sentence of imprisonment to a sentence of fine, inasmuch as, the appellant has not only lost his service, but also suffered agony of protracted trial. The sentence of imprisonment of one year is, therefore, altered to a sentence of fine of Rs.3,000. The fine of Rs.1,000 already awarded to the appellant is maintained. Resultantly, the appellant shall deposit. Rs.4,000 with the trial Court, in default, he shall suffer R.I. For one year. In case the amount is not paid within two months from today, the trial Court shall issue warrants for the arrest and detention of the appellant.