' The learned counsel for the appellant has informed that the appellant has since died. He submits that he does not challenge the conviction but has prayed for the remission of the amount of fine.
2. In this case the deceased appellant had received a sum of Rs,5,000 as illegal gratification from the brother of Amir Din who was sentenced to death in a murder case and was ultimately executed on 1-2-1969. Before execution Amir Din made a will and stated in portion 'A' to 'A' that after the dismissal of his appeal by the Supreme Court Noor Muhammad and his co-accused Mehtab Khan had received Rs,5,500 from his brother with a view to saving him from the gallows. Noor Ahmad appellant had received Rs,5,000 while the remaining amount of Rs,500 was received by Mehtab Khan, co-accused.
3. The trial Court found the appellant guilty under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the P.CA. And sentenced him to undergo R.I. For three years with a fine of Rs,6,000 or in default to undergo further R.I. For three months.
4. Since the conviction of the appellant is based on cogent evidence which has been fully discussed by the trial Court I maintain the conviction of the appellant. There is no justification for the remission of the amount of fine. The appellant and his co-accused were guilty of depriving brother of Amir Din deceased of an amount of Rs,5,500 in the year 1969 on the false assurance of rendering help for saving him from the gallows. I, therefore, dismiss this appeal and maintain the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. .