This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Senior special Judge,/ Anti- Corruption whereby he on 11-6-1978 convicted Bashir Ahmad appellant under section 161, P.P.C.
Read with section 5 of the . Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to nine months'
R.I. And a fine of Rs.1,000 in default thereof to three months' R.I.
2. The appellant was working as Duty Clerk Omni Bus Service, Lahore. The charge against him was that he demanded and then accepted Rs.30 as illegal gratification from Habib Ahmad Conductor P.W.4. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined four witnesses. Habib Ahmad P.W4 appeared to prove the demand and acceptance of g.c. Currency notes by the appellant from him as illegal gratification. Safdar Ali M.I.C. P.W.2 and Muhammad Amin S.I. Circle Officer P.W.3 were produced to prove the recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. He raised plea of the return of loan to him. In defence he produced two witnesses.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove that the tainted currency notes were paid as bribe money. Conversely the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. I find that the recovery of the tainted currency notes having been admitted by the appellant, the main question for consideration is as to whether the same were received as bribe money or not. Since the Magistrate and the Circle Officer did not hear the talk preceding the passing on of the tainted currency notes, therefore, the statement of Habib Ahmad complainant alone remains in the field upon which in the circumstances, of the case, I am not prepared to place implicit reliance. The possibility of the defence version that the complainant had returned him Rs.30 towards loan obtained by him cannot be excluded. For all these reasons I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. Giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charge.