' This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore, whereby he on 18-3-1987 convicted Zia-ud-Din appellant under section 161, Cr.P.C. And section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to 3 months R.I. And a fine of Rs,1,000 on each count, in default thereof 2 months R.I. On each count. The sentences were _ordered to run concurrently.
2. The appellant was a Head Constable Traffic. The charge against him was that he demanded and accepted Rs,20 from Muhammad Sarwar P.W.2 as illegal gratification for not challaning his wagon.
The appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, prosecution produced 3 P.Ws. Muhammad Sarwar P.W.2 appeared to prove demand as well as acceptance of Rs,20 from him as illegal gratification by the appellant. Abdul Razzaq, Magistrate P.W.1 and Muhammad Aslam Inspector ACE, P.W.3 were produced to prove the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the appellant.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C, the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. He did not produce any evidence in defence.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, inasmuch as, the complainant has not supported the allegation of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification from him by the appellant. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that Muhammad Sarwar complainant has not supported the prosecution. He was not declared hostile. No request was made by the prosecutor for declaring him hostile. Muhammad Sarwar has categorically stated that Zia-ud-Din appellant was not the person who had demanded bribe from him and that he himself offered money to the appellant but he refused to accept the same and had told that money be paid to the Head Constable who had demanded bribe; that the Magistrate and the Inspector had neither seen the passing on of tainted currency notes by the complainant to the appellant nor had they heard any conversation between them. That being the position, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant had demanded or received tainted currency notes from the complainant as illegal gratification.
' For what has been said above, while giving benefit of doubt to the appellant, he is acquitted of the charges. He is on bail. He stands discharged of the bail bonds.