This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Gujranwala, whereby he on 23-4-1988 convicted Noor Ahmad appellant under section 161, P.P.C.
Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentenced him to 9 months' R.I.
And a fine of Rs.2,000 m default thereof 3 months' R.I.
2. The appellant was posted as S.D.C. m Irrigation Department, Qila Ram Kour. Liaqat Ali complainant was a Chowkidar. The charge against the appellant was that he demanded and accepted Rs.200 as illegal gratification from Liaqat Ali F 'W.1 for delivering him the order of his appointment. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case prosecution produced 3 witnesses. Liaqat Ali appeared to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant. Mushtaq Ahmad S.I., P.W.2 and Syed Ali Aqdas Shahzad P.W.3 were produced to prove the recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant.
They supported the prosecution case.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. He raised the plea of false implication. He denied to have received the tainted currency notes from the complainant although he admitted that the complainant had approached him at the time of raid and placed tainted currency notes on a cot lying nearby. He produced 3 witnesses in defence.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the appellant has received Rs.200 as illegal gratification and not for any other purpose. No one has appeared for the State.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I find that the Magistrate and the Sub-Inspector had not heard any conversation about the nature of transaction between the appellant and the complainant preceding the passing on of the tainted currency notes. The Magistrate stated that while giving the tainted currency notes to the appellant, the complainant stated that; "he will pay the remaining amount after receiving his pay on first of the coming month."
The Sub Inspector has not stated so. He simply stated that; "In their presence, the complainant gave Rs.200 to the appellant which were subsequently recovered from his hand."
It may be noted that according to the Magistrate, the tainted currency notes were recovered from the cot and not from the hands of the appellant. It is well settled that mere recovery of the tainted currency notes will not show that the same was received by the appellant/accused as illegal gratification. Since the Magistrate and the Sub-Inspector have not deposed about the real nature of the transaction, so the statement of the complainant with regard to the nature of transaction remains in field. He being decoy witness, the rule of prudence requires independent corroboration of his statement, which I do not see in the casein hand.
For what has been said above, I am convinced that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the appellant had received Rs.200 as illegal gratification. There being no satisfactory basis to uphold the conviction of the appellant and while giving him the benefit of doubt, he is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail he is discharged of the bail bonds.