' This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned ipecial Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha & Faisalabad Division, at 3argodha whereby he on 23-4-1985 convicted Ashiq Hussain appellant inder section 161, PPC and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption ket, 1947 and sentenced him to three years' R.I. And a fine of ls.30,000 in default thereof to further S.I. For three years.
2. The appellant was a Patwari. The charge against him was that le demanded and accepted Rs,5,000 as illegal gratification from duhammad Rafiq PW.1. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution_ examined three witnesses. Nuhammad Rafiq PW.1 appeared to prove demand and acceptance of Ilegal gratification from him by the appellant. Ch.Muhammad Ashraf dagistrate PW.2 and Raja Muhammad Inayat Inspector A .C.E. PW.3 were produced to prove acceptance of the tainted currency notes by Ind recovery thereof from the appellant. They supported the )rosecution case.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant denied 0.1 the incriminating circumstances. In reply to the question. "Why his case against you," he stated:- "I am innocent. Rafique complainant demanded of me that I should under compulsion show him in revenue papers, as in occupation of the land in dispute. I, refused to commit an irregularity. I depicted this fact of the land being state ownership in my report. Because of this grudge the complainant through conspiracy made this false case against me and got me arrested after having summoned me from the office room of Lands Officer."
' In defence he produced Muhammad Rafiq Assistant Lands Officer who stated that he did not learn about the payment of bribe money and that the appellant was arrested without justification.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution as failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as the Nagistrate and the Inspector neither saw the money changing hands ior did they hear any conversation between the complainant and the ippellant at the time of raid and that the complainant is not a reliable Nitness. Conversely the learned counsel for the State has supported :he judgment of the learned trial Court. The learned counsel maintains :hat the tainted currency notes having been recovered from the iandkerchief of the appellant which was lying on the table of the ippellant, gives rise to the statutory presumption that the same were tccepted by him as illegal gratification and that the prosecution Nitnesses having no animus against the appellant, are quite dependable.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned ounsel for the parties with care. I find that the appellant has not idmitted the recovery of tainted currency notes from his possessien; :hat the tainted currency notes were also not recovered from the Aysical possession of the appellant; that the Magistrate and the Inspector ACE did not see the appellant placing bribe money on the :able lying in front of him; that so far as the acceptance of Rs,5,000 !Rom the complainant is concerned, the statement of Muhammad Rafiq ilone remains in field. He being a decoy witness, it would not be in {{PAGE CUTT}} accordance with the safe administration of justice in criminal cases to place implicit reliance on his uncorroborated testimony. Since the bribe money was not recovered from the physical possession of the appellant, therefore, no statutory presumption would arise that the money was actually received by him as illegal gratification. For all these reasons I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the tainted currency notes were accepted by the appellant as illegal gratification.
7. For what has been stated above, giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charge. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.