ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-- This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Judge of Sind High Court dismissing petitioner's appeal and thereby confirming the conviction recorded against him under section 161 P.P.C. Read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, for which he was sentenced to R. I. For three months and fine of Rs. 1000 or in default undergo R.I. For one month.
2. The prosecution case against the petitioner who was at the relevant time working as a clerk in Karachi Development Authority Office, Korangi, Karachi was that he demanded illegal gratification of Rs.300 from Aleemuddin for recording mutation entry in the Record of Right in respect of purchase of plot No. 112/33-F Korangi, Karachi from Mst. Hameeda. Aleemuddin reported the matter to the Anti --Corruption Officer who after recording F.I.R. Organized a trap with the assistance of Muhammad Usman Shahani, Additional City Magistrate, Karachi. The Anti-Corruption Officer gave Rs.300 as tainted money to Aleemuddin in the presence of the Magistrate and such Mashirnama was prepared. The raid party along with Magistrate went to K.D.A. Office where petitioner was sitting. While Magistrate stood at the door of the room and Anti-Corruption Inspector was at the distance of 2-3 paces from the Magistrate mashir Shakeel came out and gave a signal on which Inspector along with the Magistrate went in side the room and took out 3 notes 100 from left side pocket of shirt of the petitioner. This was the amount which the petitioner had received earlier from Aleemuddin as illegal gratification.
3. The trial Court believed the prosecution evidence and on reappraisal of the case the learned Judge in the High Court also took the same view, in these words:- "Complainant Aleemuddin has fully supported the case of prosecution. He went, and lodged the report and finally handed over tainted money to appellant and amount was secured from him. But in his evidence stated that his eye-sight has become very weak therefore he cannot see whether accused present in Court was the same person who demanded Rs. 300 and latter on took the amount from him. Complainant was examined on 4-12-1984 about one and half year after the registration of the case. In cross-examination he has stated that at the time he had gone to K . D . A . Office his eye sight was perfect and he could see clearly at that time therefore this lacuna in the evidence cannot help the appellant. Shakeel was mashir of recovery. The Magistrate Muhammad Usman and Anti-Corruption Inspector Fakeer Muhammad has fully supported the case."
4. Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel of the petitioner raised almost the same pleas that were urged on behalf of the petitioner in the High Court since all these relate to appreciation of evidence and have been rightly rejected on merits of the case and on sound principles of law, there is no merit in this petition. The petition is therefore dismissed.