1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment of the Lahore High Court Multan Bench, Multan dated 16th April, 1989 whereby criminal appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. ' The petitioner was tried for offences under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 by Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Dera Ghazi Khan who vide his judgment convicted him under the aforesaid sections and sentenced him to two years' R.I. Plus fine.
3. The allegation against him was that he was caught by the raiding party accepting illegal gratification amounting to Rs,200 from the complainant for entering his redemption mutation, the petitioner being Settlement Patwari. The appeal against the conviction and sentenced was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present petition.
4. ' It was argued by learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the decoy witness did not give bribe of Rs,200 to the petitioner but it was intended to be given to another person namely Bashir Patwari. The argument is that the decoy witness was only seen handing over the tainted money to the petitioner and that the raiding party could not hear the conversation which took place between them. It was submitted that .The decoy witness had stated in his statement before the trial Court that the bribe was not received by the petitioner from him but it was for some one else. It was next submitted that neither the Magistrate nor the Circle Inspector had heard the conversation between the complainant and the petitioner as they were not near them.In support of his reasoning the learned counsel relied upon 1985 SCMR 1141 Sycd Safdar Ali v. State and 1985 SCMR 114 Hafiz Aziz Ahmad Khan v. State.
5. After hearing learned counsel we find that there is no substance in his arguments. The facts in the cited cases are distinguishable. The decoy witness was declared hostile but even if we were to accept his statement that the petitioner had received illegal gratification for some one else, the very act of receiving the same amounted to commission of the offence for which he had been convicted. The tainted money was recovered from his person and even the perusal of the statement of Ghulam Sarwar complainant (decoy witness) indicates that the tainted money was given as illegal gratification and had been received so by the petitioner. Be that as it may it is not a fit case for interference. Leave is, therefore, refused.