The appellant Yaseen Ahmed was tried on the charges of corruption and convicted under section 161, P. P. C. Read with section 5(2), Act II of 1947 and sentenced to R.I. For six months and fine of Rs.500 or in default R.I. For one month vide judgment of Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Karachi dated 30-11-1980.
2. The prosecution case as unfolded in the F. I. R., is that appellant visited the carpet factory of the complainant Abdul Jabbar in Drigh Colony as Inspector of the K.M.C. And on checking the papers relating to water connection of the factory, found that some bills of water charges were outstanding against the factory. Although the complainant assured him that he had been regularly paying the water charges and was ready and willing to pay whatever amount was found due from him, the appellant did not listen to him and got the water supply of his factory disconnected. On 23-3-1976 the complainant accompanied-by- his friend Abdul Quddus approached the appellant at his residence for restoration of the water connection. The appellant demanded Rs.500 from him as illegal gratification for restoration of the water connection, requiring him further to see the appellant in his office on the following day to finalize the deal. When the complainant alongwith the said Abdul Quddus went to the appellant as per above appointment, the latter agreed to accept Rs.400 and in return prepared the necessary challan for Rs.180 which the complainant was to pay in bank as arrears of water charges. As the complainant had no money at that time he took the appellant to his house but there too he could not make the payment for want of the requisite amount. Accordingly he promised to pay the agreed amount to the appellant on the next day. But on the following day the complainant instead of going to the appellant approached the Anti- Corruption Police and got his complaint registered. Imdad Hussain Shah, the Inspector Anti- Corruption who recorded the F.I:R., arranged a trap and called Abdul Razzaq, D.S.P., Anti-Corruption to supervise the same. AS usual the tainted money of Rs.400 was handed over to the complainant for passing on to the appellant, under Mashirnama incorporating the numbers of four notes of Rs.100 each therein. The Mashirs were Abdul Qudus and Muhammad Hayat. The D.S.P. Also signed the Mashirnama (Exh.4).
3. Then the complainant and Mashir Abdul Quddus proceeded together on scooter whereas the rest of trap-party followed them in a taxi. The complainant was instructed to pursuade the appellant to come out of his office on some pretext, and this he did. The complainant passed on the tainted money to the appellant and this was witnessed not only by Mashir Abdul Quddus but also by the members of the trap-party who were waiting at a few paces from the place where the money was delivered to the appellant. Those who saw the delivering of the money to the appellant noticed that We latter put the tainted money in front pocket of his shirt. Subsequently on signal given by the complainant the trap-party rushed to the place where the appellant was available.
However, on seeing them, the, appellant threw the tainted money on the ground and tried to Nun away. He was, however, over--powered by the two, constables and the Inspector. The notes thrown by the appellant were picked from the ground and on comparing their numbers they were found to be tallying with those mentioned in the Mashirnama prepared at the time of delivering the notes to .The complainant. The Mashirnama of securing of notes was also prepared in presence of Mashirs Abdul Quddus and Zamir Ahmed, the driver of the taxi (Exh.5). After completing the remaining investigation the appellant was placed on trial with the result mentioned above.
After hearing Mr. Azad Bin Haider assisted by Mr. Nooruddin N. Ramzan on behalf of the appellant and Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, Assistant Advocate-General for the State, the appeal was disposed of by short order dated 5-3-1985 whereby the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant was reduced to the one he had already undergone leaving the sentence of fine in tact. He was, however, given a fortnight to pay the amount of fine. Subject to above modification in the sentence the appeal was dismissed. Following are the reasons in support of the short order:-
4. Apart from the complainant Abdul Jabbar Exh.10, the prosecution have produced in evidence Abdul Quddus Exh.2, Zamir Ahmed Exh.9, Abdul Razzaq, D.S.P. Anti-Corruption Exh.14 and Saeed Ahmed Khan Anti-Corruption Inspector Exh.17. The complainant has deposed to the facts as given in the F.I.R., referred to above. He is supported by Abdul Quddus inasmuch as that he accompanied the complainant to the appellant's house where the latter was requested to restore the water connection of the complainant's factory. He confirms that the appellant first demanded Rs.500 for doing the needful but when they approached him again on the following day he agreed to accept Rs.400. He also states that .As they had no money at that time, .The appellant was brought to the complainant's- house but there too the payment could not be made to him. According to this witness complainant took upon himself to pay the agreed amount to the appellant on the next day in his office. He further states that instead of going to the appellant's office,' they went to the Anti- Corruption Office where the complainant lodged. Report with the said police. It also appears from his evidence that Anti-Corruption Inspector gave four currency notes of Rs,100 each to the complainant to be passed on to the appellant and that for delivering the tainted money to the appellant he and complainant went on scooter followed by the remaining trap-party in a taxi. His evidence also shows that he and complainant brought the appellant outside his office and they covered hardly 25 paces when tainted money was delivered to the appellant who put the same in his shirt pocket. After the complainant gave the signal to the trap-party, they rushed to the spot but on seeing them the appellant threw the money on the ground.
5. Like Abdul Quddus the other two witnesses namely, Zamir Ahmed, Taxi Driver and Abdul Razzaq D.S.P., also claim to have witnessed the passing on of the tainted money to the appellant by the complainant and the appellants throwing of the said money on the ground.
6. The defence of the appellant is bare denial. As has been stated by him in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C., the tainted money was thrown by the complainant himself on the ground in front of him. The question is as to why the above four witnesses have testified to the effect that the tainted money was delivered by the complainant to the appellant who first put the same in his pocket but subsequently on seeing the trap-party threw it on the ground. No doubt the complainant was not happy with the appellant as the latter had got the water supply .Of his factory disconnected. Even otherwise in case like this the Court are slow in placing implicit reliance on the complainant who is invariably regarded to be at par with accomplice. But in the instant case, his evidence is corroborated not only by Abdul Quddus who is admittedly the complainant's friend but also by Zamir Ahmed, Taxi Driver and Abdul Razzaq, D.S.P,. Anti-Corruption. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that no reliance can be placed even on the evidence of D.S.P., as he is a Police Officer. He also submitted that since no Magistrate was called to supervise the trap, the whole story relating to trap cannot be above suspicion particularly when the tainted money has been secured not from the possession of the appellant but from the ground.
7. It may be pointed out that Abdul Razzaq, D.S.P. Anti-Corruption is a responsible Police Officer. He has nothing to do with the investigation of the case. He was only called for the specific purpose of supervising the trap. Therefore, his evidence cannot be rejected merely because he happens to be a Police Officer. There is nothing to show that he had any grudge against the appellant. It does not appeal, to reason that the officer of his status would perjure himself only to see that the case of the prosecution was proved. Again he is not the only voice raised in support of the complainant's evidence. There is also the evidence of Zamir Ahmed, Taxi Driver who is entirely independent. It is, therefore, difficult to agree with the argument that the evidence of the above witnesses particularly of D.S.P. Abdul Razzaq and Taxi Driver Zamir Ahmed is false.
8. Thus in view of the evidence of the above witnesses the prosecution case is proved inasmuch as that tainted money was passed on to the appellant who put the same in .His shirt pocket and after was surprised by the trap-party, he threw the money on the ground Therefore, the tainted money secured from the ground can be safely held to have been secured from the appellant's possession.
Having arrived at this conclusion the burden was on the appellant to prove that it was not a bribe money. Instead of doing so, the appellant has contended himself with mere denial of having received the said money and subsequently throwing the same on the ground. The only defence witness examined by the appellant is Mirza Afzal Baig Exh.21. He is obviously of no help to him. He has not said anything to show that either the tainted money was not passed on to the appellant or that it was not .a bribe money. Without mentioning the name of the complainant all that this witness has said is that the owner of the Plot No.3/1 at Drigh Colony was misusing K.iM.C., water and, therefore, he was given show-cause notice and ultimately his water connection was discontinued.
He has further stated that the owner had approached him in his office and had even shown his willingness to clear the arrears whereupon, he prepared the challan of arrears and handed it over to him. Obviously his evidence does not prove anything which is of any assistance to the appellant.
Thus the appellant as failed to show that the money delivered to him was not bribe money. Even otherwise as is disclosed in the evidence of complainant and his witness Abdul Quddus that the money passed on to the appellant was the bribe money which the appellant had demanded from the complainant for the restoration of the water connection. The case of the prosecution, therefore, is proved beyond any reasonable doubt and the appellant hang been rightly convicted by the learned trial Court.
9. However, as for sentence awarded to the appellant it cannot be ignored that as a result of his conviction the appellant lost his job. Furthermore he has undergone the agony of the litigation with all its attendant effects for nearly nine years. The case was registered as far back as 23-3-1976 and during the intervening period the appellant has also remained in jail for a few days. He has also suffered not only financially but also mentally as well as reputation-were during all these years.
Thus he has been sufficiently punished. It would not be proper to send him back to jail after more than four years since his conviction. Accordingly the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the one he has already undergone. As for sentence of fine he is allowed a fortnight to pay the amount of fine. Subject to Above modification in the sentence the appeal is dismissed.