1. ' The appellant Siddique Sidda son of Sidda was sent up by A.C.E. Police, Karachi for offence under section 161, P.P.C. Of Act II of 1947 for having demanded and accepted Rs,200 as illegal gratification other than, legal remuneration from Mst. Saliha Bibi as a motive of reward for marking her presence and Bhatta' to save her from her transfer on the basis of false report and was tried by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption (Provincial) Karachi and convicted him under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(11) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 vide judgment, dated 19-7-1988 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay fine of Rs,1,000 or in default to suffer R.I. For one month more. The appellant has preferred this appeal to challenge the impugned judgment.
2. ' Briefly, the fact, of the case are that one Mst. Saliha Bibi wife of Boota lodged report at the Anti- Corruption Police, Karachi as Crime No, 30 of 1986 on 3-4-1986 wherein it is alleged that the complainant worked as sweepress in K.M.C. Landhi Area and according to her whenever she got her pay Inspectors Nazir and Shoukat collected Rs,100 from her as `Bhatta' through the appellant Siddique Sidda. It is the case of the complainant that as a result of increment in her salary for the current month Rs,214 were received extra by her, therefore, `Matta of Rs,200' was demanded from her and she was told that in case she failed to pay, she will be marked absent. It is also the case of the complainant that the complainant agreed that on 1-4-1986 she will pay the 'Matta' after her son gets the salary. The payment was agreed to be made on 3-4-1986 at about 1-00 p.m. Near the Chiragh Hotel at the time when the attendance was to be marked and the Thatta' was to be collected by the appellant or Nusrat or Shoukat. On 3-4-1986 she approached the Anti-Corruption Establishment and lodged the report Exh.6. The report was taken down by the In chargc Inspector A.C.E. Nazir Hussain who after recording the F.I.R. Produced the complainant alongwith the F.I.R.
3. Before the Magistrate, Ali Akhar Mughairi, A.C.M.I West Karachi. The Magistrate had verified the contents of the F.I.R. And the Inspector Nazir Hussain gave Rs,200 to the complainant as tainted money in presence of the Magistrate and the two independent Mashirs, Ahmed Nawaz and Masood under memo. Exh.7 prepared on the same day. In the memo. The numbers of the notes were mentioned which were handed over to the complainant to be passed on to the appellant.
4. Thereafter the Magistrate, the complainant, the Mashirs and the Investigating Officer proceeded to the pointed place situated in Landhi Korangi Area. The trap party waited at some distance from the Chiragh Hotel where the appellant was sitting under a tree. Along with the Mashir the complainant went to the accused and the complainant took out the tainted money and gave to the appellant who accepted the tainted money and kept it in the front pocket of the shirt. After having seen the transaction the trap party went near the accused and after disclosing their identity the Magistrate took out the tainted money from the pocket of the accused. The money was recovered and was compared with the numbers already noted down in the Mashirnama Exh.7 and the Mashirnama of recovery was prepared as Exh.8 which was produced during the trial. The accused was arrested.
5. The trap party alongwith the accused came back to the Anti-Corruption Office where the I.O.
6. Recorded the further statement of the complainant. The trap Magistrate prepared the raid report and was signed by the trap Magistrate which is Exh.9 on record. After completing the Investigation, proper sanction was obtained through S.P. Anti-Corruption which is also placed on the record produced by the Investigating Officer as Exh.13. The formal charge was framed against the appellant by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption (Provincial) Karachi on 18-7-1987 and it was read over and explained to the appellant in the language which he understood. To the charge the appellant did not plead guilty. The charge is on the record as Exh.2 ' The prosecution in support of its case produced P.W.1 Ali Akbar Mughari Exh.5, who produced the F.I.R. Exh.6, the Mashirnama of handing over of tainted money as Exh.8 and the raid report Exh.9. Mst.
7. Shaliha Bibi the complainant was examined as P.W.2 at Exh.10, Mashir Masood Hussain was examined as P.W.3 at Exh.11, and Nazir Hussain the Investigating Officer as P.W.4 at Exh.12 who has produced the sanction for prosecution as Exh.13. The P.D.S.P. Incharge of the prosecution case vide Exh.14 gave up the second Mashir Ahmed Nawaz on 8-6-1988. The statement of the appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Wherein he denied the prosecution allegations and showed his willingness to examine himself on oath in defence and also examined the defence witness on 2-7- 1988 on oath. His statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C., is at Exh.17 and the statements of the defence witnesses namely Khurshid and Allah Bux are at Exhs.19 and 20 respectively. The learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption after taking into consideration the evidence produced by the prosecution passed the impugned judgment which has been challenged in this appeal.
8. ' Mr. Faizanul Hague, Advocate appeared for the appellant and Mr. Ghulam Rasool Warsi appeared on behalf of the Advocate-General for the State.
9. I do not feel necessary to reproduce and discuss in detail the evidence of prosecution witnesses for the reason that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has gone unchallenged as in spite of opportunity given to the appellant he did not cross-examine any witness. The trap Magistrate in the case, All Akbar Mughari has fully supported the prosecution case. There is no enmity suggested nor any question in cross-examination has been asked. In fact there is nothing on the record to disbelieve what the Magistrate has said. So also Mst. Saliha Bibi, the complainant in the case has fully supported. The F.I.R. Likewise Mashir Masood Hussain has also supported the prosecution case in toto. Both these witnesses have no enmity nor they have been cross-examined by the appellant.
10. Their evidence apart from being natural, is convincing and in absence of anything on record I do not find any reason to support the veracity of these witnesses. The evidence of the Investigating Officer is also not challenged in any manner excepting that he was put a question in cross- examination by the appellant to the effect that at the time of incident the eye-sight of the appellant was weak and he denied the suggestion that the complainant Mst. Saliha had put the money in the pocket of the accused. It is very pertinent to note that the defence plea raised by the appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Has not been suggested to any of the prosecution witnesses nor the appellant has deposed to what he has said in 342, Cr.P.C. In statement while he was examined on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. All that he has said in his statement on oath was that whatever he has stated in his statement was correct and denied the acceptance of money. Be that as it may the prosecution evidence on record does not suffer from any infirmity and the prosecution case before the trial Court has gone unchallenged. Mr. Warsi appearing for the State has support the impugned judgment and according to him the evidence on record is natural and the defence plea raised has not been suggested to any of the prosecution witnesses.
11. ' In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal nor do I feel inclined to disturb the impugned judgment which is well-reasoned. Consequently, the appeal having no merit, is dismissed. The appellant has paid up the fine of Rs,1,000 as pointed out by the learned State Counsel. Criminal Appeal No, 142 of 1988 stands dismissed.