1. ' Appellant, Muhammad Sharif, was tried by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore for an offence under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 25-6-1990, convicted and sentenced him under section 161, P.P.C. To 3 months' R.I. With a fine of Rs,1,000 or in default further R.I. For one month. In the present appeal the appellant has challenged the conviction and sentence.
2. ' The prosecution story in brief as disclosed in the F.I.R. Lodged by Muhammad Aslam with Police Station, Anti-Corruption, Kasur, was to the effect that he was running a General Merchant Store. He had given an application to the Labour Department for being allowed to observe holiday on Friday.
3. Appellant Muhammad Sharif was Senior Clerk in the Labour Department and he demanded Rs,50 per month for getting him permission. The appellant promised to pay the amount on 23-10-1988.
4. Since the appellant did not wish to pay the amount, therefore, he informed the Circle Officer, A.C.E., Kasur.
5. ' Mr. Abdul Mateen, Circle Officer, recorded the F.I.R. Exh.P.W.1/1 and then gave an application to A.D.C.(G), Kasur, with a prayer that a Magistrate be deputed to supervise the raid. Rana Muhammad Asghar, MIC, Kasur, was duly deputed, who, noted down the number of currency note to be passed on to the appellant and gave the same to Muhammad Aslam P.W. The raiding party went towards the office of the appellant. Muhammad Aslam P.W. Alone was sent inside the office whereas the Magistrate and Circle Officer waited outside. On receiving signal from the complainant, he went to the office and after introduction he secured Rs,50 from the pocket of the appellant. The Magistrate also recorded his statement P.W.2/4. Thereafter he also recorded the statement of the first informant Exh.P.W.1/2. Muhammad Aslam, P.W.1, after usual investigation challaned the appellant.
6. The prosecution in support of its case produced three witnesses in all. Muhammad Aslam P.W.
7. Corroborated the version given by him in the F.I.R. He was cross-examined at length. He admitted that his shop was adjacent to the office of A.C.E., Kasur. He further stated that he was challaned for not observing holiday on 21-10-1988. Rana Muhammad Asghar, M.I.C., P.W.2, gave a detailed account of the raid supervised by him. On receiving signal he went to the accused and asked him to produce the tainted currency notes which the appellant did. On comparison they were found to be the same which had been given to P.W.1 for passing them. He admitted that he did not hear the conversation nor saw the money changing hand. Abdul Mateen, Circle Officer, P.W.3 corroborated the version given by the Magistrate. In cross-examination he refused the suggestion that tainted currency notes were not recovered from the possession of the appellant. He also admitted that he did not hear the conversation nor saw the money changing hand.
8. ' At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence the appellant was examined without oath wherein he refuted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. He also produced a witness in his defence. D.W.1 Muhammad Saad stated that he was in the office of the appellant when a person came and forcibly put some money in his pocket.
9. ' The appellant did not accept the money and threw the same. The raiding party came and picked up the same from the ground.
10. ' It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the case against the appellant was highly doubtful. Submitted that neither the raiding Magistrate nor the Circle Officer heard the conversation nor saw the money changing hand and, in such circumstances, uncorroborated testimony of the complainant could not be relied upon. Submitted that there were discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses, therefore, it would be extremely unsafe to rely upon them.
4. I have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the evidence with his assistance.
11. Muhammad Aslam, P.W. 1, is admittedly a shopkeepr. It has also been admitted that he had given an application seeking permission to observe holiday on Friday. It has not been denied by the defence that the appellant did not deal in his official capacity with such applications. The witness was cross-examined at length but he has not been suggested any motive for the false involvement. The defence did bring on the record that the complainant Muhammad Aslam was challaned once and that fact alone would not render his statement doubtful. As far the learned Magistrate and the Circle Officer, P.Ws.2 and 3, respectively are concerned, they had given detailed account of the ocurrence though both of them admitted that they did not hear the conversation nor saw the money changing hand yet they witnessed the recovery of tainted currency notes from the possession of the appellant. In such circumstances the statement of the first informant finds corroboration from the statements of the Magistrate and the Circle Officer to the extent of recovery of tainted currency notes. On the other hand, when the appellant was appprehended at the spot his statement was recorded by the raiding Magistrate wherein he stated that Muhammad Aslam P.W. Had forcibly put Rs,50 in his pocket. He wanted to return the same but before he could do so he was apprehended. In his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. He disowned the recovery of Rs,50 from his possession and stated that the complainant forcibly put the money in his pocket. On the other hand the defence witness produced by him had stated that the money was forcibly put in the pocket of the appellant which he threw on the ground from where it was picked. The defence version taken by the appellant clearly indicates that the money did change hand and the same was recovered from the possession of the appellant. In such circumstances, when the application of the first informant was pending with the appellant and the recovery of Rs,50 from his possession establishes the guilt of the appellant beyond any doubt, therefore, I find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant is on bail, he shall be taken into custody to serve the remaining period of his sentence.