1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMED, J.-The petitioner was tried and con--victed by the learned Special Judge- cum-Enquiry Officer, Anti --Corruption, Hyderabad, under section 161, P. P. C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and was sentenced to suffer two years' R. I. And also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, or in default of payment of fine, to suffer R. I. For six months. He challenged this order in Criminal Appeal No. 381 of 1971, and a learned Single Judge of the High Court, by judg-- ment dated the 16th July 1971, has reduced the sentence of imprisonment from two years to six months' R. I., and has maintained the sentence of fine. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said judgment.
2. The prosecution case is that in the month of October 1969, the petitioner was posted at Jamesabad Police Station in Tharpar--kar as a Police Head Constable. On the 18th October 1969, the petitioner accompanied by two other constables under the orders of S. H. O. P. W. Muhammad Laique, brought Adam Khan, who is a Zamindar and also runs a shop and his three haris, Ibrahim, Bakhshan and Issa to the Jamesabad Police Station as they were required in a case under section 110, Cr. P. C. Adam Khan complainant was kept at the Police Station till 11 p.m. And was allowed to go away for the night on the undertaking of Muhammad Ashraf Forester to produce him on the following day. The complainant Adam Khan was produced at the Police Station on the next morning. The petitioner demanded Rs. 500 from complainant Adam Khan for not challaning him alone under section 110, Cr. P. C. Adam Khan agreed to pay this money and was allowed to go to his village to arrange for the payment of the amount. Complainant Adam Khan, however, reported the matter to the Anti-Corruption Officer, Mirpurkhas, who arranged for a trap which was ordered to be supervised by the Head Munshi and III Class Magistrate Mr. Amba Ram P. W. 4.
3. On the 20th October 1969, the said Anti-Corruption Officer paid a sum of Rs. 500 in the shape of currency notes of different denomination to complainant Adam Khan in the presence of Afashirs and the said III Class Magistrate. Mashirnama was prepared in which the numbers of currency notes were as usual shown. On the same day, the complainant Adam Khan accompanied by the said III Class Magistrate, Anti-Corruption Officer and the two Mashirs, namely, P. W. 5 Mir Muhammad and P. W. 6 Muhammad Ramzan, left by a car for Jamesabad Police Station, where they all reached at about 6 p.m. The car was stopped at some distance from Jamesabad Police Station. Com--plainant Adam Khan accompanied by Mashir Mir Muhammad went inside the police station. The petitioner was not found there and it was learnt that he had gone to the hotel of Murad Ali D. W. 2 in the Jamesabad town.
4. Complainant Adam Khan and his two Mashirs, thereupon, left for the hotel of Murad Ali. They were followed by the III Class Magistrate and Anti-Corruption Officer. Complainant Adam Khan and Mashir P. W. Mir Muhammad then went inside the hotel while the other Mashir kept standing outside. They found the petitioner sitting there. They sat with the petitioner and had tea with him.
5. After finishing their tea, all the three came out from the hotel when the petitioner demanded the amount of Rs. 500. Adam Khan, thereupon, handed over to the petitioner the marked currency notes. The Magistrate and the Anti-Corruption Officer, who had witnessed the transaction from a distance. Rushed to the petitioner and on seeing them, the petitioner is alleged to have cried out "Durrani Sahib has come". He threw the currency notes there and started running but he was chased by the complainant Adam Khan and the two Mashirs.
6. The prosecution case is supported by S. H. O. Muhammad Laique, Adam Khan, Muhammad Ashraf Forester, Magistrate Amba Ram, Mashirs Mir Muhammad and Muhammad Ramzan and the Anti- Corruption Officer Mr. Ghulam Ahmad Durrani. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses has been accepted by the trial Court and the High Court. The High Court on this evidence has upheld the conviction of the petitioner.
7. Mr. Imdadally Agha, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the alleged bribe money of Rs. 500 constituted by numerous currency notes of various denomination were admittedly not recovered from the person of the petitioner but this money was picked up from the ground by the P. Ws. According to the learned counsel this showed that it had been tried to be planted on the petitioner and, therefore, he cannot be held guilty of the charge. The learned counsel further contended that Mashir P. W. Mir Muhammad is a relative of complainant Adam Khan and no reliance should have been placed on his evidence. He further contended that Mashir Muhammad Ramzan had not seen the passing of the money and, therefore, benefit of doubt should have been given to the petitioner.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the sanction has not been granted properly and that the sanction doe,, not show that the sanctioning authority applied his mind con--sciously.
9. The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed us. We have gone through the sanction and it clearly shows that the sanctioning authority has not only considered the facts and other circumstances of the case but also the explanation of the accused.
10. After carefully considering the argument of the petitioner' counsel, we are satisfied that the Courts below have appreciated the evidence of the prosecution properly and the petitioner has been rightly convicted for the offence alleged against him. There is no ground to interfere. The petition is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.