' Abdul Ghani (55) Chairman Union Council, was tried for having accepted Rs,200 as illegal gratification from PW Inayat in order to show favour to him in a matrimonial dispute pending before him. On 29-3-1974 Special Judge, Anti-corruption convicted him under section 161, P.P.C.
Read with section 5(2) (b) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to one year R.I.
The appeal of the convict is before me.
2. Muhammad Inayat (informant) had litigation with his wife which was decided by Ch. Sultan Ahmad, Chairman of Ghakka Union Council directing him to pay Rs,40/- per month as maintenance to his wife Mst. Fatima but the matter ended in a compromise and thereafter his wife came back to him. Later they again fell out and the matter went to Abdul Ghani appellant who was then Chairman of Union Council.
' He also ordered him to pay Rs,40/- per month. Inayat went up in appeal before the Controlling Authority and the case was remanded to the appellant directing to arrange a compromise between the parties. Abdul Ghani represented to Inayat that he would right off the maintenance, would also help in divorcing his wife and demanded Rs, 500/- from him but the bribe was settled at Rs,200/-. Abdul Ghani felt upset over it. He informed the Inspector Anti-Corruption Wazirabad. He was produced before the Magistrate for recording his statement Exh.PW1/A, thereafter a raid was arranged. On 5-5-1966 it was settled between PW2 Muhammad Shafi, Inspector, PW4 Agha Hyder Magistrate and Inayat complainant that they would be, going Riaz Hotel where the complainant should bring Abdul Ghani accused and make payment to him in their presence there. Ten rupee notes of the value of Rs,200/- were signed by the Magistrate and delivered to the informant. At about 3 p.m. The informant left the Magistrate and Inspector in the said hotel and went to fetch the accused who returned with him at 5.25 p.m. The two entered the hotel. The Inspector and the Magistrate were near the entrance of the hotel taking cold drinks. After about 2/3 minutes, Abdul Ghani and the informant came out and sat on, a bench lying outside the hotel. After having talked for a few minutes, Inayat handed over the money to the accused within the view of the raiding party. The Magistrate went up to him and recovered the money from the appellant which was taken into possession through memo Ex.PW2/C attested by him and the Inspector. He recorded the raid report and the statement of the accused Ex.PW4/D, supplementary statement of the complainant Ex.PW1/B and the accused was arrested. The appellant was prosecuted in due course and besides the evidence of the Inspector and the Magistrate, prosecution relied on the evidence of PW 5 Abdul Aziz who was Reader to the Collector. He produced file Ex.PW2/H which related to the matrimonial dispute between the complainant and his wife. He also produced the relevant orders on this file which indicated that the matter was pending before the accused-Chairman.
3. At the trial, the appellant admitted that informant's matter was pending before him but he denied having asked for bribe. He admitted having gone to Riaz Hotel with Inayat. He also admitted having received Rs,200/- from Inayat but his version was that Inayat had promised to supply ghee to one Khan Muhammad of Wanjuwali but since he failed to supply it, Khan Muhammad asked the appellant to get his money back from Inayat and he stood surety for Inayat and Rs,200/- received by him were in fact of the ghee transaction which he was to pay to Khan Muhammad. He further asserted that since he had refused to the illegal request of the informant to decide the case in his favour, therefore, he got him trapped. In his defence, he produced, Muhammad Siddique DW 1, Secretary of appellant's Union Council who deposed that one Khushi Muhammad was defeated by the accused in the election. He even arranged no confidence motion against the appellant but did not succeed. Said Khushi Muhammad was a helper of the informant in the matrimonial cape. He also mentioned about the ghee dispute with Khan Muhammad,' DW2 Khan Muhammad supported the defence version about the supply of ghee. According to this witness, he made an application against Inayat for the return of Rs,200/-, since Inayat did not pay it, he received this money from Abdul Ghani before the raid, who stock as surety for Inayat PW for paying the money. DW3 Muhammad Sadiq a partner in the Riaz Hotel, Wazirabad also supported the defence version story about the supply of ghee.
4. It was contended that the Inspector and the Magistrate did not hear the conversation between the appellant and the informant. On the other hand, the defence has proved the conversation which took place between the appellant and the informant. This argument falls to the ground for the simple reason that none of the defence witnesses who claimed to be present when the money passed appeared before the Magistrate. Moreover, the defence led by him at the trial was not his case in his statement Ex.PW4/D which he made before the Magistrate soon after the money was recovered from him wherein he had said that the informant wanted him to decide the case in his favour and thrust the money on him which he was not accepting. It is not the evidence of the Inspector and the Magistrate that the money was being thrust on him. Their evidence is that he had accepted it and it was thereafter that they made their appearance and took the money from him. In so far as the question of conversation was concerned that matter had already been settled between the appellant and the informant and it was only passing of the hush money which both the Inspector and the Magistrate saw. Obviously, the appellant cooked up the story at a later stage.
The defence tried to show tha Khan Muhammad had also sent notice- Ex.PW2/K to Inayat for the return of Rs,200/- through a petition writer. In the register of petition writer, these entries have been found by the Special Judg to have been interpolated. Moreover, as pointed out earlier, had this been his case, he would have said so in the first instance when his statement was recorded by the Magistrate. I am satisfied with thee appellant's guilt. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. His sentence of imprisonment is reduced to a period already undergone by him. He shall pay Rs, 500/- as fine in default to suffer six months R.I. Further.