Appellant Mohammad Jumen has been convicted by the then learned Special Judge-crane- Enquiry Officer, Hyderabad under section 161, P. P. C, read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and was sentenced to pay a fine of Its. 500 or in default to suffer six months' R. I Te appellant feeling aggrieved bas now, appealed against his said conviction and sentence.
2. The relevant facts of the case briefly are these Complainant Abdul Hakim in this case was prosecuted by a direct complaint for dacoity and other offences alongwith his Kamdar Mohammad Umer (P. W. 4) and 8 others of his harts in the Court of the Civil Judge & F. C. M., Tando Bago by ogre Nizamuddin. The direct complaint in this dacoity case seems to lave been filed before the said Magistrate on 4-10-1967. The complainant is a zamindar paying about Rs. 500 to Rs.
1,000 land revenue in a year and he owns land in Pangrio, Taluka Tando Bago. The said dacoity case against them was still pending when the complainant filed a transfer application before the learned A. D. M., Hyderabad for transfer of the said case to the Court of some other competent Magistrate. He made this application on 7-8-1968 and it has been produced by the prosecution as Exh.
5. The learned A. D. M. Taking action on it issued orders requisitioning R & Ps. And remarks of the Cavil Judge & F. C. M., Tando Bago and a copy of this order has been produced as Exh. 6 on record.
This order is dated 8-8-1968. The said dacoity case against the complainant and others was fixed in the Court of the Civil Judge & F. C. M., Tando Bago for hearing on 24-8-1968. On this last mentioned date the complainant could not attend the trial Court due to his sickness but the other co-accused with him including the said P. W. Mohammad Umer attended the Court as is also shown by the diary of this date in the record of the dacoity case which has been brought on the file of the trial Court as Exh. 18, and diary of this date further shows that the present complainant had sent an application regarding his illness alongwith a medical certificate as such his absence was excused and the case was put off to next hearing to 31-8-1968. However, it is the prosecution case that on this date i.e. 24-8-1968 the Serishtedar of Civil Judge & F. C. M., Tando Bago who was admittedly the present appellant Mohammad Juman called P. W. Mohammad Umer and demanded bribe for sending their case to superior Court on the transfer application. The appellant, it is alleged, knew that P. W. Mohammed Umer was only a hari of the complainant in the present case and that Mohammad Umer would speak about the demand of bribe to his master.
Accordingly, thereafter P. W. Mohammad Umer came in the evening to the complainant Abdul Hakim and informed him regarding the bribe that had been demanded by the present appellant from Mohammad Umer. According to the complainant he was informed by P. W. Mohammad Umer that the appellant wanted Rs. 50 as bribe to be paid to him otherwise the papers would be--lying in the Court and no remarks would be sent on the transfer application made by the complainant herein. On the next day i.e. 25-8-1968 appellant Mohammad Juman met the complainant Abdul Hakim at Gari Khata Bus Stop at Hyderabad where the complainant resided in a bungalow in Latifabad. The appellant told the complainant that he had received the papers and the same would not be disposed of unless the appellant was paid Rs.
50. Thereupon, the complainant pronged to pay Rs 50 to the appellant on 31-8-1968 which was the next date of hearing of the case against complainant arid others. Thereafter on 30-8-1968 the complainant Abdul Hakim went to the Circle Officer Anti-Corruption; Hyderabad District at Hyderabad Mr. Ghulam Rasool (P. W. 7) and lodged a report of the offence of demand of bribe by the appellant from him which report was duty recorded by P. W. Ghulam Rasool at that very tuna and is Exh. 3 on record. P. W. Ghulam Rasool then obtained permission from A. D. M., Hyderabad to hold investigation in the case which was reported to him and the A. D. M. Accorded that permission vide Exh. 20 on record. The A. D. M. Also by a further order which is Exh. 21 directed that the Head Munshi and Third Class Magistrate Mr. Gehimal (P. W. 3) of Tando Mohammad Khan should supervise the trap in this case. This order deputing the Head Munshi and Third Class Magistrate to supervise the trap proceedings has been produced as Exh.
21. The arrangement with-- the complainant Abdul Hakim was that the said Circle Officer Anti- Corruption was to meet him on the next day of the complaint at Tando Bago Where the complainant was asked to be present and he had to be there in connection with the date for hearing of his case which was fixed on that date. On 31-8-1968 the complainant went to the Court of Civil Judge & F. C. M., Tando Bago at 7-30 a. m. And learnt that the Civil Judge had gone to the High Court Judge who was to come there and stay an Inspection Bungalow. He met the appellant who repeated his demand for the bribe as promised by the complainant and the latter told him that he should wait a while as the complainant would come and bring the money for him. The appellant is said to have given dates in all the cases pending in that Court from 7-30 a. m.
Onwards as the Civil Judge was at the Inspection Bungalow but kept away the case against the complainant Abdul Hakim without giving him any date. The complainant then went and stood at the Hotel nearby the Court premises of the Civil Judge along--with his people who were co- accused in the case with him. The Circle Officer, Anti-Corruption aforesaid had told the complainant that he would come there in a taxi. In the meanwhile on that day the Anti-Corruption Circle Officer P. W. Ghulam Rasool had started from Hyderabad by taxi, the driver of which was one Atta Mohammad. P. W. Ghulam Rasool took up the Head Munshi and Third Class Magistrate P. W.
Mr. Gehimal from his Headquarter at Tando Mohammad Khan on the way. The taxi then reached the place at Tando Bago where the complainant Abdul Hakim was standing at about 10 or 10-30 a. m. And it went and stopped at the other side of the bridge at a distance of about 500 to 600 paces away from the complainant. The latter identified the said Anti-Corruption Circle Officer and his party, and he went and met the Anti-Corruption party. Thereafter the driver of the Taxi of the Anti- Corruption Officer was asked to act as a mashir along with another mashir, namely, A.I Muhammad (P. W. 6) who was called from the Court's side. The complainant was then given five currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 10 each and a mashirnama Exh. 11 was accordingly prepared in which the numbers of the currency notes were also noted. The mashir P. W. A.I Mohammad was sent with the complainant to watch passing of the bribe money to the appellant/accused. A signal was also arranged with him which was that when the bribe money was passed on to the appellant this mashir should raise his turban up over his head. The Anti- Corruption Circle Officer and P. W. Gehimal Third Class Magistrate then waited near the hotel outside the Court premises of the Civil Judge while the complainant and P. W. A.I Mohammad mashir went to the Court room and another mashir Atta Mohammad waited at a place in between theta. When the complainant went into the Verandah of the Court of the Civil lodge & F. C. MTrade Bago while P. W. A.I Mohammad stood 8 or 10 paces away from him the appellant saw the complainant in the verandah and he came out to the complainant. The complainant then handed over the bribe money of Rs. 50 to the appellant who put the money in his shirt pocket and then scent and sat on his chair inside the office. Accordingly, the pre-arranged signal was given by P. W.
A.I Mohammad mashir and the learned Third Class Magistrate P. W. Mr. Gehimal and Anti- Corruption Circle Officer P. W. Ghulam Rasool rushed to the office of the appellant and they went inside it. They found the appellant sitting at his table and they disclosed their identity to the appellant. The latter got up from his chair and the Third Class Magistrate P: W. Gehimal took out the bribe money from the pocket of the appellant as it was found to be the same that was mentioned in the aforesaid Mashirnama Exh.
11. Accordingly a mashirnama of the recovery of the bribe money was prepared by the Third Class Magistrate which was attested by the said marhirs and has been produced as Exh. 12 on record. From the person of the appellant Rs. 292 more also were secured by the Anti-Corruption party. The Anti-Corruption Circle Officer then arrested the appellant. He examined P. W. Mr. Gehimal and also recorded the statement of mashirs P. W. A.I Mohammad and Atta Mohammad as well as the further statement of the complainant. On 2-9-1968 the Anti.
Corruption Circle Officer examined P. W. Mohammad Umer. On 7-9-1968, lie examined Allah Dino, Senior Clerk of A. D. M., Hyderabad who produced the transfer application made by the complainant for the transfer of the case in question which is Exh. 5 on record as well as order and letter of the learned A. D. M. Which are Exhs. 6 and 7 and these documents were taken into possession by this witness. The Anti-Corruption Circle Officer P. W. Ghulam Rasool disposed of the final report of the case on 26-9-1968. Thereafter, it appears that the case papers in August 1970 were taken up by Mohammad Usma n (P. W. 5) who took charge as Circle Officer. Hyder--abad District. He received the sanction for the prosecution of the appellant which he has produced as Exh. 15 and he then challaned the appellant in August 1970 to the trial Court where the latter took his trial with the result already mentioned above.
3. The appellant when questioned under section 342, Cr. P. C. Denied his guilt and professed innocence. He, however, admitted that on the relevant date he was the Serishtedar in the Court of the Civil Judge & F. C. M., Tando Bago. Regarding his demand of Rs. 50 through P. W. Mohammad Umer Kamdar of the complainant on 24-8-1968 he stated that this allegation was false and he had never demanded any illegal gratification from the complainant Abdul Hakim either directly or through his Kamdar. He was then questioned whether he had written the case diary of the dacoity case dated 24-8-1968 and he admitted that he had written order-sheet as Serishtedar under the instructions of the Magistrate. He was then asked whether he had repeated the demand of bribe of Rs. 50 on 25-g-196$ at Hyderabad from the complainant to which he answered in the negative.
Regarding the recovery of the bribe money from his possession in the raid by the Anti-Corruption party he stated that the bribe money was planted on him. He was then questioned as to the recovery of Rs. 292 more from his right side shirt's pocket. By the Anti-Corruption party and he replied that although money was secured frown him after he was arrested but it was the last day of the month and, according to him, this amount was the Court money and his pay but again be corrected himself and said that Ra. 140 wore his money which he .Had borrowed from Seth Piyar A.I.
He was then questioned that the record of the dacoity case against the complainant was withheld by him for which a reminder was issued to the Court where he worked by letter Exh. 8 and the record was despatched on 31-8-1968, the date of the incident, after the raid on him by letter Exh. 9 and that the Civil Judge Mr. Masood Akhtar had refused to hand over the record to the Anti- Corruption Inspector Mr. Ghulam Rasool. In reply to this ques--petition he said that he had no concern with the correspondence between the A. D. M. And the Civil Judge. He also added that the Civil Judge was not prepared to send the R. & P. To the A. D. M., Hyderabad, whenever transfer application was made for which there was correspondence between the two. He was then asked that in the diary of the date of the incident in the dacoity case he had falsely recorded that the complainant herein Abdul Hakim as accused in that dacoity case was absent on that day and to this question he said that he had not typed this order-sheet in the case and it was prepared after he was arrested. He further said that be did not know typing. In the further questions asked from the appellant that he was seen accepting the tainted money as bribe to send the record of the case Exh. 18 to the A. D. M., Hyderabad the appellant replied that this allegation was not correct and that in fact the record was not with him. He then added in answer to the next question put to hire that he was not incharge of the record of the cases. He added that he used to deal with cages and the record at the time of the trial of the case in the Court and the record of the dacoity case was already with the Magistrate as he bad to send the remarks and reply to the reminders. In answer to the question as to why this corruption case was filed against him he stated that tile complainant used to remain absent in the case and the warrants were issued by the Magistrate against him for which the complainant blamed him and, it is therefore, that he was involved by the complainant due to grudge. He then gave the names of several witnesses whom he wished to examine in defence. Best he actually examined only one witness in defence who is Fakir Mohammad and gave up the others.
4. The prosecution has examined seven witnesses who are (1) com--plainant Abdul Hakim, (2)
Allah Dino clerk of A. D. M., Hyderabad, (3) Mr. Gehimal Head Munshi and. Third Class Magistrate, (4)
Mashir Mohammad Umer, (5) Mohammad Usman, (6) Mashir A.I Mohammed and (7) Circle Dicer Anti-Corruption Ghulam Rasool. Besides these P. Ws. Pane Mohammad Iqbal clerk of the Civil Court & F. C. M., Badin was examined as a Court-witness by the trial Court and this witness has only produced the R. & P. Of the dacoity case against the complainant Abdul Hakim and others which was by then transferred to the Court of the Civil Judge & F. C. M., Badin and out of which the present case of corruption has arisen. This record of the dacoity case has been marked as Exh. 18 by The trial Court. This dacoity case bears No. 80/1969 as having been first fled in the Court of the Civil Judge & F. C. M., Tando Bago.
5. The fact that the complainant Abdul Hakim in the present case was involved as an accused person alongwith his Kamdar P. W. Mohammad lamer and 8 other harts in the dacoity case filed by direct complaint before the Civil Judge & F. C. M., Tando Bago on 4-10-1967 does not admit of any doubt as the R. &. P. Of this dacoity case has been produced by the prosecution as Exh. 18 on the record which clearly shows that this dacoity case was pending since then in that Court against the complainant and his other 9 harts. Further the fact that the complainant herein made a transfer application to the A. D. M. Hyderabad on 7-8-1968 for the transfer of this dacoity case to some other Court is also proved bar P. W, Allahdino who was a judicial clerk under the A. D. M., Hyderabad at that relevant time. He has produced the application for transfer as Exh. 5 on record and also the order of the A. D. M. Requisitioning R. & Ps. And remarks of the Civil Judge & F. C. M., Tando Bago, as Exh.
6. This order is dated 8-8-1968. This witness further goes on to say that the Civil Judge & F. C.
M., Tando Bago sent his remarks on 21-8-1968 which were received in the office of the A. D. M. On 23-8-1968 and he produced these remarks as Exh.
7. But he also added that the said Civil Judge had not sent the R. & Ps. Of the dacoity case which were sent for by the order Exh. 6 already mentioned and accordingly a reminder Exh. 8 was issued by the learned A. D. M to the said Civil Judge on 26-8-1968. This reminder Exh. 8 was received by the Civil Judge & F. C. M., Tando Bago on 29-8-1968 as the original envelope of this order appears to bear this date as found in the record Exh. 8 of the dacoity case from the postal seal on it. The clerk P. W. Allah Dino further added that after this reminder the Civil Judge and F. C. M. Despatched the R. & P. Of the dacoity case to A. D. M., Hyderabad on 31-8-1968 which was received in his office ors 4-9-1968 with a forwarding letter, of the Civil Judge which he has produced as Exh.
9. In his cross-examination this witness has said that the Civil Judge & F. C. M. Was in the habit of sending the remarks on the application without sending the R. & Ps. Of the case and he quoted one instance of a case of Rafique v. Saudagar which was sent by the Magistrate after finishing the case itself. He continued farther and said that after this there was a cor--respondence exchanged between the District Judge & A. D M., Hyderabad to direct the Civil Judge & F. C. M., Tando Bago to send R. & Ps. In time. 'this witness clerk P. W. Allah Dino is an entirely disinterested and an independent witness and there appears no manner of doubt to disregard what tie has deposed to. In fact his evidence shows that the learned Civil Judge & F. C. M., Tando Bago was in the habit of not sending the R. & Ps, of the cases to the learned A. D. M., Hyderabad to whom applications were made for transfer of those cases and the R. & P. Was ordered to be requisi--tioned by him as such the matter had been moved by the learned A. D. M., Hyderabad with the District Judge to issue directions to the Civil Judge & he C. M., Tando Bago to comply with the orders of sending R. & Ps. In the cases on the transfer application being made early to the A. D. M., Hyderabad. So far the dacoity case against the present complainant and others is concerned, regarding it obviously remarks which were called for from the learned Civil Judge & F. C. M., Tando Bago were despatched by him on 21-8-1968 to the A. D. M., Hyderabad as stated by P. W Allahdino but the R. & P. Of the case was not despatched by him which according to this witness was despatched by the said Judge after a reminder, as already said Exh. 8, on 31-8- 1968 the date of the present occurrence. All these facts must be well within the knowledge of the appellant as he was the Reader or Serishtedar of the Court of the Civil Judge & F. C, M. Tando Bago at the relevant time. He must have also known the habit of tine said learned Magistrate of not sending the R. &. P. When it was requisi--tioned by the A. D. M., Hyderabad on transfer applications being made in cases pending in the Court where the appellant was a Serishtedar. It appears, therefore, that the appellant with the dishonest intention of taking bribe from the complainant Abdul Hakim has taken undue advantage of this habit for the learned Civil Judge & F.C.M., Tango Bago. The complainant has deposed in his evidence, inter alia, that his dacoity case was fixed for hearing on 24-8-1968 when he did not go to the Court but his other co---accused including P: W.
Mohamed Umer had attended the Court an that hearing as also the diary of this date in the record of the dacoity cast Exh. 18 shows. By this date the remarks on the transfer application of the complainant had been already despatched by the Civil Judge & F. C. M., Tando Bago to the A. D. M., Hyderabad but the R. & P. Had not yet been despatched. P. W. Mohammad Umer further stated that on this date i.e. 24-8-1968 the appellant demanded bribe from him for sending the case papers of the dacoity case against him and another to the A. D. M., Hyderabad and this witness Mohammad Umer is said to have told him that he would inform about it to his master i.e. The complainant Abdul Hakim. He further gees on to add that he had accordingly, thereafter, informed the complainant about the demand of the bribe by the appellant for the purpose which has been stated above. The complainant says in his evidence that on the next day i.e. 25-8-1968, the appellant met him at Garikhata Bus Stop at Hyderabad and demanded Rs. 50 as bribe for sending the R. & P. Of the dacoity case against the complainant and others to A. D. M., Hyderabad. The complainant promised to pay him the demanded bribe on the next date of hearing of the case which was 31-8-1968. The complainant further deposes that he then contacted the Anti-Corruption Circle Officer P. W. Ghulam Rasool at Hyderabad and lodged his report regarding demand of the bribe by the appellant which has been produced as Exh. 3 by the prosecution "this first report, it will be appreciated, was lodged a day prior to the date of the incident and as such it also further goes to corroborate the subsequent version of the taking of the bribe itself by the appellant on the next day. The Anti-Corruption Circle 'Officer P. W. Ghulam Rasool had then arranged with the complainant to meet him outside the Court premises at Tando Bago on the next day when he would come there. Accordingly, as the complainant says on the next day i.e. The date of the occurrence he had gone to the Court of the Civil Judge & F. C. M., Tando Bago at 7-30 a. m. When he met the appellant who again demanded the bribe money from the appellant for the purpose which has been already mentioned. The complai--nant told him that the appellant should wait for a while and the complainant would go and fetch the money. In the meanwhile on that day the Anti---Corruption Circle Officer P. W. Ghulam Rasool states that he had obtained permission for investigation of the present crime from the A. D. M, Hyderabad which he has produced as Exh. 20 on record and the further order of the A. D. M. Exh. 21 deputing the Head Munshi aid Third Class Magistrate Mr. Gehimal to supervise the trap in this case. The Anti. Corruption Officer had started on that day from Hyderabad in the taxi, the driver of which was one Atta Muhammad and on the way to Tando Bago he picked up the said Head Munshi and the Third Class Magistrate, Tando Muhammad Khan. This Anti-Corruption party then reached Tando Bago at about 10 or 10-30 a. m.
As stated by the complainant. The complainant then contacted this party and he was given 5 currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 10 each by the Anti-Corruption Circle Officer, regarding which a Mashirnama Exh. 11 was prepared in presence of said mashir Atta Mohamed and one P. W.
A.I Mohamed who was picked up from near the premises of the Court. Then a signal was arranged with the mashir P. W. A.I Muhammad which he had to give after the bribe money was banded over by the complainant to the appellant as has already been stated earlier in the narration of the facts of the prosecution story in the paragraphs at the beginning of the judgment. "The complainant gave the bribe money to the appellant whom he called outside in the verandah of the Court and the appellant took the same and put it in his shirt pocket. On the pre-arranged signal being given by the mashir P. W. A.I Muhammad, p W. Mr. Gehimal the Thud Class Magistrate and the Anti- Corruption Officer Ghulam Rasool rushed to the Court office where from the possession of the appellant the bribe money was secured by the said Third GlassMagistrate and accordingly a mashirnama of the recovery was prepared and the appellant was put under arrest. All these facts have been deposed to by the complainant Abdul Hakim, rnashir A.I Muhammad, the Head Munshi and Third Class Magistrate P. W. Mr. Gehimal and the Anti. Corruption Officer P. W. Ghulam Rasool.
No doubt the complainant who is the bribe-giver is to be treated as an accomplice in this corruption case and his evidence is not to be relied upon unless it is materially corroborated by other independent evidence or circumstances on record. But in the Instant case it will be seen that this complainant Abdul Hakim is amply further corroborated by P. W. Muhammad Umer regarding the demand of the bribe for the first time by the appellant on 24-8-1968 and also that he stands further corroborated by the evidence of the mashirs P. W. A.I Mohamed as well as that of the Third Class Magistrate and the said Anti---Corruption Officer who have led a trap and caught the appellant red-handed with the bribe money. In my opinion, all the evidence that appears on the record against the appellant as discussed and shown above clearly establishes his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as he has been caught red-handed with the-bribe money for which circumstances exist on record by wary of documentary evidence also to show that the prosecution allegation is true that the appellant demanded and accepted bribe for sending the R. & P. Of the dacoity case against the complainant Abdul Hakim and 9 others to the A. D. M., Hyderabad. In this view of the matter when once the evidence regarding the acceptance of the bribe money by an accused is taken to be true and trustworthy then a presumption arises under section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 that the accused accepted the bribe, unless the contrary is proved, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 161 of the P. P. C. Without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate. Obviously, this presump-- petition operates in the present case and thus, in my opinion; the burden lay on the appellant in the evidence present on the record in this case to show that he was innocent or created a reasonable doubt regarding his guilt. This in my opinion he has failed to do. The learned counsel for the appellant tried to argue that the complainant Abdul Hakim had remained absent on five dates of hearing in the dacoity case against him i.e. On 18-12-1967, 22-4-1968; 13-7-1968, 12-8-1968 and 24-8-1968 on which dates the diary of the dacoity case in the record Exh. 18 it is shown likewise but on all these dates of hearing except one. i.e. 13-7-1968 the complainant Abdul Hakim had remained absent in his dacoity case due to illness and he had seat medical certificate for his absence on those dates. This absence of the complainant on various dates of hearing I think has been pressed by the learned counsel to support the allegation of the appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. That as the complainant Abdul Hakim had remained absent for all these hearings the Civil Judge and F. C. M., Tando Bago had issued non-bailable warrants against him for his arrest for which the complainant blamed the appellant and, therefore, the complainant has involved the latter, i.e. Appellant, by planting the money on him. But the learned counsel for the appellant failed to point out front the diary of the dacoity case record of which was present before me as Exh. 18 that the Civil Judge & F. C. M. Tando Bags had ever issued warrants for the arrest of the complainant Abdul Hakim. "Therefore, this allegation of the appellant as, put forward by his counsel does not appear to be true and merits no consideration. Of course, there is no proof on record to show that the bribe money was planted on the appellant as alleged by him. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the R. & P. In the dacoity case against the complainant Abdul Hakim was not with the appellant and the sending of it was not in his hands as the Civil Judge & C.
M., Tando Bago had himself kept away the R. & P. With his own-self. Therefore, the complainant had nothing to do in the matter. Even though if we assume that this was so still then the appellant would be guilty of demanding and accepting the bribe which he has done in the instant ease as it stands proved as already discussed above and for that he is to be made criminally liable. The learned counsel for the appellant has cited three cases i.e. Bashir Ahmed v. The State (1968 P Cr. L J 1670), Sultan A.I v. The State (PLD 1971 Kar. 71), and Mohammed Saleem v. The State (PLD 1971 Lah.
799), but I do no see how any one of there reported cases is or can be of any avail to the appellant's defence. These are cases which deal with entirely different facts and circumstances from those that exist in the present case; as such these authorities are of no help to the defence. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that mashir P. W. A.I Mohamed is facing prosecution, as admitted by him, in three cases, therefore, he should not be relied upon. But it will be appreciated that at the time he gave evidence other three criminal cases were pending against him in which he was accused but was not yet convicted in any of them therefore, for that reason the presump--petition of innocence operates in his favour and it cannot be said that he was a convict as such unworthy of credence. However, he is not the only independent witness to the actual trap but there are others who are the Magistrate Third Class and the Anti-Corruption Circle Officer aforesaid who also appeared to be independent and disinterested witnesses as they have no enmity or animus against the appellant to involve him is this case.
6. That brings us to the defence evidence of the sole witness namely, Fakir Muhammad who has been examined on behalf of the appellant. This witness has deposed that he knew the appellant and in August 1968 one Haji was Punkha Puller in the Court of the Civil Judge & F., C. M., Tando Bago.
This Haji was resident of the village of this witness and the latter had gone to see him on 31st August, 1968 (the date of the occurrence) to inform him about the receipt of his letter as his letters were coming on the address of this witness. This witness, according to him, went to the Court office in time between 9 a.m. To 10-30 a.m. He was sitting with the appellant at that time. Four people then came inside the once of the appellant. They searched the appellant and took out money from the appellant. The appellant told that party that some of the money was the Government money and some was his own money. This witness then ended his examination-in-chief by saying that many other people who had to attend the Court were also present in the office and that the raiding party was counting the money when this witness went away. He also added that lie did not know Abdul Hakim, complainant.
7. It will be seen from this evidence of the defence witness that in fact he admits the recovery of money from the pocket of the appellant by the raiding party and he is not able to account for it and further he does not also know the complainant Abdul Hakim, therefore, he has not said whether he was also present at that time or not? He does not say that no money whatever was secured from the possession of the appellant by the raiding party. Furthermore his evidence appears to be unnatural pause there appears no reason which might have compelled him to go to the Punkha Puller Haji, as he says, in the Court premises of the Civic Judge in order to inform him about his letters being received by this witness. Still further more the appellant did not otter this witness as his defence witness to the Anti-Corruption Party, who conducted the raid on him so that his statement could also have been recorded key the Third Class Magistrate who had supervised the trap. For these reasons I find that the evidence of the defence witness Fakir Muhammad does not inspire implicit confidence in what he says and as such it is untrustworthy. This defence evidence, therefore, is also of no avail to the appellant's case. The prosecution evidence adduced by it as already discussed above clearly establishes the guilt of the appellant for the offence for which he has been convicted.
8. For the foregoing reasons I find no merit in his appeal which is accordingly dismissed. I like to mention here that the appellant has been rather leniently treated with respect to the sentence awarded to him. The appellant has not so far deposited the fine of Rs. 600 imposed on him by the trial Court as this sentence was suspended at the time of admission of his appeal. Now that his appeal is dismissed by the above order, the appellant shall pay and deposit the fine in the trial Court within one week of receipt of this order by him or in default thereof he shall be remanded to judicial custody for undergoing the sentence of six months' R.I. In default of payment of lute for which the office shall accord--ingly issue an order to the appellant at an early date.