' Muhammad Amir, Moharrir/Head Constable, Police Station Bhera, District Sargodha, was sent up by Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Sargodha, for trial for an offence under section 161, P.P.C. The Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha, vide his judgment dated 29-8-1988 found him guilty and sentenced him to nine months R.I. And a fine of Rs,5,000 or in default three months' R.I.
For the offence under section 161, P.P.C. The accused has appealed to this Court.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, as disclosed in the F.I.R. Exh.PA. Lodged by Muhammad Shabbir, P.W.1, is to the effect that on 11-9-1985 he went to Police Station Bhera for getting attested three forms of arms licence. Muhammad Amir Khan was Moharrir of the said Police Station, who demanded Rs,50 for the attestation of each form. The first informant told him that he did not have the money and promised to pay the same the following day.
' Since said Muhammad Shabbir did not wish to pay illegal gratification, therefore, he appeared before Malik Tilla Muhammad (P.W.4), C.O./A.C.E., Sargodha, who after recording the F.I.R. Made an application Exh.P.F. To Assistant Commissioner, Bhalwal, for deputing a Magistrate to supervise the raid. Mr. Khalid Mehmood (P.W.3), Resident Magistrate, Bhera, was accordingly deputed.
' Muhammad Shabbir, P.W., was produced before Khalid Mehmood, Resident Magistrate, Bhera, who recorded his statement Exh.P.B. And also noted down the numbers of three currency notes P.1 to P.3 in the denomination of Rs,50 each and constituted a raiding party. The raiding party went towards the Police Station, Bhera. The raiding Magistrate and Malik Tilla Muhammad, C.O./A.C.E. Stayed back. The first informant with two other witnesses was sent to the office of the appellant. After about half an hour they were informed that the appellant had received the illegal gratification.
Thereafter, the Magistrate and the C.O./A.C.E. Went to the Police Station and met the appellant.
Before the appellant could be searched, he ran into an adjoining room and threw the money outside the window. The Magistrate kept an eye on the tainted currency notes nd directed one Inayat Ilahi to pick up the said currency notes, which was accordingly done and handed over to the Magistrate. On comparison, he found the serial numbers of the currency notes, thrown by the appellant, were the same as were handed over to the first informant. Thereafter the Magistrate recorded the statement Exh.P.C. Of the first informant and Exh.P.C./1 of Inayat Ilahi, P.W. He also recorded the statement of the appellant Exh.P.I., thereafter he ordered the arrest of the appellant.
' The case was investigated by Malik Tilla Muhammad, C.O./A.C.E. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completion of the investigation submitted the challan.
3. The prosecution in support of its case produced five witnesses in all. Muhammad Shabbir, P.W.1, who was complainant in the instant case, did not support the prosecution version, therefore, was declared hostile and allowed to be cross-examined by the Prosecutor. In cross-examination conducted by the defiance counsel he admitted that Inayat Ilahi, P.W.2, had picked up the currency notes lying on the ground outside the window of the office of the appellant. Inayat Elahi, P.W.2 supported the prosecution case in examination-in-chief by stating that when the Magistrate disclosed his identity the appellant ran into another room and threw the money outside the window, which he picked up and produced before the Magistrate. In cross-examination he however stated that he did not witness the money changing hands nor heard the conversation. He was recalled for cross-examination wherein he stated that the appellant had not accepted the money in his presence. Khalid Mehmood, P.W.3 was Resident Magistrate, Bhera. He supported the prosecution and gave the details. He had recorded the statement of the complainant and supervised the raid as well. Within his view the appellant took out the tainted currency notes from his pocket and threw them outside the window which were picked up by Inayat Ilahi on his direction. He had recorded the statement of the appellant as well. Malik Tilla Muhammad, P.W.4, was C.O./A.C.E., Sargodha. He supported the prosecution version in detail and corroborated the statement of the Magistrate. In cross-examination, he admitted that he did not see the money changing hands nor heard the conversation between the complainant and the appellant.
Muhammad Shafi Constable, P.W.5, was member of the raiding party. He accompanied the complainant to the police station where the money was handed over to the appellant. He gave a signal to the raiding party, whereupon they came to the police station. Within his view the appellant took out tainted currency notes and threw them outside from the window which were picked up by Inayat Ilahi, P.W.
' At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence the appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Wherein he refuted the prosecution allegation and pleaded innocence. In answer to a question he stated that the money was not recovered from him but was found lying in a street. He further asserted that the instant case was got registered at the instance of one Dr.Musa who had filed a writ petition against him and the S.H.O. He had also produced defence witnesses. D.W.1 Sultan Ahmad stated that he was Member District Council and knew the appellant. According to him, the appellant was innocent. In cross-examination, he admitted that he did not appear in the defence of the appellant during investigation. Liaqat Ali, D.W.2, Head Constable stated that in September, 1985, the Magistrate came to Police Station Bhera, where he was posted. The appellant was informed by a Constable that a Magistrate had come, whereupon he went outside and received him. The appellant was searched and Rs,700/800 were found from his possession whereupon the said Magistrate accused him of having accepted illegal gratification.
4. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the case against the appellant was not proved at all. Asserted that the complainant in this case did not support the prosecution version and the witness accompanying him also neither saw the money changing hands nor heard the conversation between them. Furthermore, he did not support the prosecution case in cross-examination. Argued that the statement of the Magistrate and of the Raiding Inspector would not be of any help to the prosecution because they did not witness the money changing hands nor heard the conversation nor recovered the tainted currency notes from the possession of the appellant. In such circumstances, their statements cannot advance the prosecution case. The contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the State. According to him, even if the complainant had not supported the case, yet when the Magistrate tried to search the appellant he ran into another room and threw the money outside clearly proves the guilt of the appellant.
5. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the evidence. Muhammad Shabbir, complainant, did not support the prosecution case. He was cross-examined by the District Attorney but nothing could be brought on the record which could advance the prosecution case. In these circumstances, no reliance on his statement can be placed. Inayat Ilahi, P.W.2, supported the prosecution case in examination-in-chief as well as in cross-examination. However, when recalled for further cross-examination, he did not support the prosecution case. I have carefully gone through the statement of this witness and find that as far as the factum of throwing the tainted currency notes outside the window is concerned, he has been consistent. The raid was conducted by Khalid Mehmood, Resident Magistrate, Bhera, Malik Tilla Muhammad, C.O./A.C.E., and Muhammad Shafi, Constable, P.Ws.3, 4 and 5, respectively. All of them have given a consistent story in their statements. They are unanimous that when they entered the police station, the appellant came out and saluted the Magistrate. He was directed to come inside a room for seal ch, whereupon he ran into another room but was followed by the Magistrate and the other members of the raiding party. Within their view from the right pocket of his trousers he took out some currency notes and threre them outside the window. The Magistrate kept an eye on the said notes and directed Inayat Ilahi to pick them, which was accordingly done. On comparison, the learned Magistrate found that the serial numbers of the notes so picked were the same which were produced before him by the complainant for passing them on to the appellant. The above said witnesses were cross-examined at length but the defence failed to bring anything on the record to indicate that they were not truthful witnesses or had any animosity against the appellant.
The contention of the learned counsel that the case was extremely doubtful because the raiding party neither heard the conversation nor witnessed the money changing hands would not be of much help to him. It is established from the record beyond doubt that when the Magistrate asked the appellant to submit himself for his personal search, he ran into another room and threw the currency notes outside the window, which were the same that had been given to the complainant.
The appellant has failed to give any explanation about his conduct discussed above. So much so that he did not even admit throwing the currency notes outside the window. The defence in cross- examination could not create any doubt regarding this aspect of the case. In such circumstances, even if the raiding party had not witnessed the money changing hands would not make material difference because of the conduct of the appellant. A presumption can safely be drawn that the appellant threw the money outside the window as the same was received by him illegally.
' As has already been held that the statement of Khalid Mehmood, Magistrate, corroborated by the statement of Malik Tilla Muhammad, C.0./A.C.E., and Muhammad Shafi, Constable inspire confidence and can safely be relied upon. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution has been able to establish its case against the appellant. Resultantly, the appeal fails, which is accordingly 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.