Abdul Aziz, aged 32 years, was sent up by Police Station A.C.E., Mianwali, to face trial for an offence under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Special Judge, Anti-Corruption. Sargodha, vide his judgment dated 10-7-1989 convicted and sentenced the appellant under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of P.C.A to three months' R.I. With a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default of payment of fine, R.I. For one month. The convict has appealed. This judgment shall dispose of the said appeal.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, as disclosed b Muhammad emir Khan P.W., in F.I.R. Exh. P.A. Lodged on 25-7-1987 at Police Station A.C.E. Mianwali, recorded by Muhammad Farooq Bhatti, P.W.2, was to the effect that the first informant had a case pending before Civil Judge, Mianwali titled Amir Muhammad Khan v. Mehmood Khan. On 11-5-1987 the said suit was dismissed for want of prosecution. The first informant gave an application for restoration of the suit. Abdul Aziz, the appellant, who was reader to the Court, demanded Rs.50 for having the case fixed and getting an order for the issuance of a notice to the other side. The first informant promised to pay the amount on 25-7-1987. Since he did not wish to pay the same, therefore, the present case.
Farooq Bhatti. C.O./A.C.E. (P.W.2) moved an application Exh. P.C. For deputing a Magistrate to supervise the raid. Mr. Muhammad Shamim Jehangir, M.I.C. (P.W.3) was duly deputed. Learned Magistrate recorded the statement Exh. P.B. Of the first informant wherein he reiterated what he had alleged in the F.I.R. Thereafter, number of fifty rupee one currency note was noted down by the Magistrate, and the raiding party went to the room of Abdul Aziz, appellant, which was adjacent to the Court of the Civil Judge where the appellant was working as Ahmad. The first informant was sent inside. After some time he gave a signal to the raiding party, which accordingly went inside.
On the personal search of Abdul Aziz, a note of Rs.50 was secured from his pocket. Said Abdul Aziz was asked to have his statement recorded but he did not make any statement on the plea that he was mentally disturbed. The accused was taken into custody and after the completion of the investigation he was challaned.
3. The prosecution in support of its case produced three witnesses. Amir Muhammad Khan, P.W.1, stated that he had filed a suit before the Civil Judge, which was dismissed for want of prosecution.
Thereafter, he moved an application for the restoration of the case. He got in touch with the appellant who promised to have notice issued provided he was paid Rs.50. He reported the matter and a raiding party was constituted, which apprehended the appellant after he had received the amount. In cross-examination, the witness stated that he was not aware about the designation of the appellant. He further stated that he had no grudge or annoyance with the appellant. Farooq Bhatti, C.O./A.C.E. P.W.2, stated that during July, 1987 he was posted as such at Mianwali. On the statement of Amir Muhammad Khan P.W., he had recorded the F.I.R. Exh.P.A. On his application, Mr. Muhammad Shamim Jehangir, M.I.C. Was appointed to supervise the raid. He stated that Rs.50 were recovered from the pocket of the appellant at the time of raid. In cross-examination, he admitted that he neither heard the conversation nor saw the money changing hands. Ch. Muhammad Shamim Jehangir, M.I.C. P.W.3 gave a detailed account of the occurrence, which has already been discussed above. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had neither heard the conversation nor saw the money changing hands. However, on the personal search of the appellant Rs.50 were secured from his shirt pocket, and the number of the note tallied with the number already noted by him.
At the conclusion of the prosecutor evidence, the appellant was examined without oath wherein he refuted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. In answer to a question he further stated that the witness was annoyed with him because he thought that the appellant was responsible for the dismissal of the suit of the first informant. On the day when the raid was conducted the appellant tried to give Rs.50 for his breakfast, which he refused. He was apprehended and falsely implicated. He also relied upon certain documents.
4. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the case against the appellant was not proved at all. Submitted that the appellant was not a reader to the Court, therefore, he could not possibly get the notice issued. Submitted that an application for restoration of the case was moved on 20-7-1987 on which notice to the other side was issued on 27-7-1987 and on the same day he had prepared the notice which was handed over to the process-server on 29-7--1987 and the same was duly served on 30-7-1987. Submits that in this view of the matter, there was no occasion for the appellant to have demanded illegal gratification on 25-7-1987 when the notice had already been issued. The contentions have been opposed by the State.
5. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the file. It is clear from the statement of Amir Muhammad P.W.1 that he had neither any enmity nor any motive for the false involvement of the appellant. He has given a detailed account of the occurrence, which inspires confidence. The truthfulness of the witness can further be gathered from the fact that at the time of registration of the case he was not even aware if the appellant was a reader or an Ahlmad of the Court. The witness in cross-examination was not even suggested any motive for the false involvement. His statement finds full corroboration from the statement of Farooq Bhatti, C.O./A.C.E., P.W.2, and the Magistrate P.W.3. None of the witnesses was suggested any motive for false involvement or enmity against the appellant.
As far as the defence version of the appellant is concerned, the same is not convincing at all. He had prepared the notice being Ahlmad on 23-7-1987 but the same had not been handed over to the process-server till 29th of July, 1987; and in such circumstances, his contention that the matter was already out of his hand is without force. The explanation given by him about his being in possession of the tainted currency note is not convincing at all. The learned Magistrate had specifically stated that on personal search a note of Rs.50 was secured from his shirt pocket, and I do not find any reason to disbelieve the same.
After having gone through the prosecution evidence, I hold it is confidence inspiring and can safely be relied upon. The defence, as already discussed above cannot be relied upon. As far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, I feel the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant would adequately meet the ends of justice. Therefore, while dismissing the appeal, I maintain the sentence but reduce the period of imprisonment to already undergone by him. The sentence of fine is, however, maintained.