' Mazhar Illahi son of Ghulam Ali caste Chadhar.Resident of Village Thatha Jabana, Tehsil and District Jhang, was convicted by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha, vide judgment, dated 10-4-1986, under section 161, P.P.C. For having demanded and obtained Rs,200 as bribe and sentenced to one month's R.I., and a fine of Rs,4,000 or in default to undergo two months, S.I. The convict has appealed.
2. The appellant was posted as Patwari Mahal of village Munda Syed, tehsil Jhang, in the year 1984.
Haji Amir Khan, complainant (P.W.3), is a Zamindar of village Hissam situate in the Patwar Circle of Munda Syed. Haji Amir Khan had a son, namely, Muhammad Nawaz. In September, 1984, the complainant approached the appellant and asked him to prepare an Agricultural Pass Book in the name of Muhammad Zawaz, his son, for the purpose of obtaining agricultural loan from the authorities concerned. The appellant demanded a sum of Rs,200 by way of bribe for preparing the Pass Book. The complainant promised to pay the bribe money to him on 3-9-1984 and on the other hand he reported to Rai Ahmad Yar (PW 2), Sub-Circle Officer, A.C.E., Jhang, against him whereupon the Sub-Circle Officer recorded statement of Haji Amir Khan and registered FIR (Ex-PM).
He then moved an application (Ex-PA) to Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jhang, for deputing a Magistrate to supervise the raid to be conducted on the appellant. The Additional Deputy Commissioner in turn vide order Ex-PA/1 detailed Sardar Abbas Hussain Tangwani, Magistrate 1st Class, (PW 1) to do the needful. The Magistrate recorded complainant's statement ExPB and handed over two currency notes of Rs,100 each after noting down their numbers, for passing on to the appellant on demand. The complainant at about 3 p.m., went towards Masha-Allah Hotel, the appointed place, for paying the bribe money. The complainant having met the appellant at Masha-Allah Hotel delivered the marked currency notes to him. The raiding party could not reach the hotel in time, therefore, the appellant in the meanwhile went away to the Tehsil Office. The raiding party subsequently went to the Tehsil Office and found the appellant coming out of the Tehsil Building at 3.15 p.m., and caught hold of him at the pointation of the complainant. The raiding Magistrate (PW 1) searched his person and recovered a purse from his shirt's pocket containing currency notes, which included the two marked currency notes and as their numbers tallied with those noted by the Magistrate before the raid, they were secured under memo Ex-PF. The appellant saying that he was not in a proper frame of mind, did not offer any explanation before the Magistrate, therefore, he arrested him. The Sub-Circle Officer after completing the investigation and obtaining sanction for his prosecution vide Ex-PN submitted the challan to Court.
3. At the trial, the prosecution produced three witnesses in support of the charge. Haji Amir Khan (PW 3) the complainant stated that the appellant had demanded Rs,200 from him for preparing Agricultural Pass Book of his son Muhammad Nawa He reported to the Sub-Circle Officer (P.W.2).
He paid Rs,200 as bribe to him in the shape of two marked currency notes which were recovered by the raiding Magistrate (P.W.1). Rai Ahmad Yar, Sub-Circle Officer (P.W.2) and Sardar Abbas Hussain Tangwani (P.W.1) stated about the recovery of marked currency notes from the pocket of the appellant.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the allegations. He, however, attributed his involvement in the case due to old enmity with complainant Haji Amir Khan. He also stated that as a matter of fact an amount of Rs,500 was paid to him by Haji Amir Khan immediately before the raid saying that the amount had been sent to him by his father-in-law Qazi Saeed Akhtar for purchasing a sacrificial goat for him and that by trick he mixed the tainted notes of Rs,200 with that money and involved him in this case. He produced his father-in-law Qazi Saeed Akhtar as DW 1 and himself also entered the witness-box to support his plea on oath.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as for the State and also perused the record.
6. The appellant has not denied recovery of tainted currency notes from him. His plea is that Amir Khan, complainant, had handed over currency notes of Rs,500, mixed with tainted currency notes on the pretext that the amount was sent to him by his father-in-law for purchasing sacrificial goat.
The question which falls for determination, therefore, is whether the appellant had consciously accepted tainted currency notes of Rs,200 as bribe or not? There is solitary statement of Haji Amir Khan, complainant, that the appellant demanded Rs,200 as bribe for preparing his son's Agricultural Pass Book and that he had paid the amount to him as bribe. Nobody overheard the coversation of the complainant and the appellant which took place at the time of delivery of the tainted currency notes to him. Thus, the complainant is the sole witness of demand and acceptance of tainted amount as bribe by the appellant.
7. The next question is, whether complainant's statement alone is sufficient for the conviction of the appellant on the charge under section 161, P.P.C. My answer to it is in the negative, because Haji Amir Khan, complainant (P.W.3) on his own showing is inimically disposed towards the appellant.
He conceded in his cross-examination that Ghulam Farid is his first cousin and Muhammad Iqbal is son of Ghulam Farid. The appellant had got Muhammad Iqbal detained for his default in paying Government dues and that he had once refused to enter a mutation on the basis of a Court's decree produced by Ghulam Farid. He further admitted that on another occasion the appellant opposed the demarcation of land as desired by the complainant himself. In the circumstances, I feel it as essential to look for corroborative evidence before acting upon his testimony but that is lacking. On the other hand, the defence version that the complainant, in order to involve him in the case, because of previous enmity, had passed on to him the tainted currency notes after mixing them with the amount given to him by appellant's father-in-law Qazi Saeed Akhtar (D.W.1) for handing it over to the appellant for purchasing sacrificial goat. Needless to say that benefit of every doubt, howsoever slight it may be, would go to the accused. The appellant, in the circumstances, is entitled to the benefit of doubt and consequently, 1 would accept this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant and acquit him. He is on bail. He is discharged of his bail bonds.