Muhammad Sabir alias Jamal was sent up for trial by Police Station A.C.E., Lahore for offence under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore vide his judgment, dated 4-12-1970, convicted and sentenced Muhammad Sabir to three months' R.I. And a fine of Rs.200 or in default R.I. For one month, under section 161, P.P.C. He was also sentenced to three months' R.I. And a fine of Rs.2l0 or in default R.I. For one month under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The convict has appealed against his convictions and sentences. The appeal shall be disposed of by this judgment.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that one Muhammad Razzaq had installed Power Looms and had applied for electricity connection from WAPDA. Muhammad Sabir was Assistant Lineman. About three months after the submission of the said application, one Muhammad Amin, Line Supervisor, demanded Rs.100 as illegal gratification. Two/three days thereafter Muhammad Sabir also visited the shop of said Muhammad Razzaq and demanded Rs.40 from him as illegal gratification for himself. They were asked to contact later. Muhammad Rafiq informed the police whereupon he was produced before a Magistrate who recorded his statement and constituted a raiding party. On 22-2--1964, the raiding party under supervision of a Magistrate came to the house of Muhammad Rafiq P.W. Within their view tainted currency notes of Rs.140 were handed over to Muhammad Sabir appellant. Rs.100 were for Muhammad Amin, Line Supervisor and Rs.40 were meant for Muhammad Sabir. Muhammad Sabir appellant was apprehended at the spot by the Magistrate and tainted currency notes were also recovered from his possession. After usual investigation, the appellant was challaned.
3. The prosecution in support of its case produced nine witnesses in all. The material witnesses are Muhammad Rafiq and the Magistrate. Both of them have given the detailed account of occurrence and also stated that the tainted currency notes were recovered from appellant's possession: Both the witnesses were cross---examined at length but nothing could be brought on the record to shake the credibility of the witnesses.
The appellant at the conclusion of the prosecution evidence while making a statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Refuted the entire prosecution evidence and pleaded innocence.
Learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset has submitted that he would be making submission for the reduction of the sentence only. Contends that the occurrence took place in the year 1964 and the appeal has not been decided till today, is sufficient sentence for the appellant.
Contends that the appellant also lost the job and had undergone more than fifty days of imprisonment.
4. I have heard learned counsel and perused the evidence with his assistance. As far as the prosecution case is concerned it had been sufficiently proved by Muhammad Rafiq and the raiding Magistrate. I have not been able to see anything which could warrant that no reliance on these witnesses could be placed. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution has 'been able to prove its case beyond doubt. As far as the quantum of sentence is concerned the case was registered against the appellant in the year 1964 and he was convicted in the year 1970. Thereafter, his appeal could not be disposed of. I think it will not be in the interest of justice to send the appellant to jail to serve the remaining period of his sentence which could be about two months, after 19 years.
S.A./M-1483/L