1. This is a petition for bail after arrest by the petitioner, who is accused of an offence under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act No.II of 1947). His petition for bail was turned down by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Rawalpindi on 5-12-1991.
2. Petitioner is an Assistant Engineer, in Housing and Physical Planning Division, Rawalpindi. A plot in the Scheme was allotted to one Muhammad Ismail of Wah Cantt. He agreed for its transfer to Fayyaz Hussain Shah. Both went to the Office of Housing and Physical Planning Division at Satellite Town, Rawalpindi for effecting the transfer of the plot. A Deputy Director of Housing and Physical Planning Department demanded a sum of Rs.20,000 as illegal gratification for completing the formalities. Rs.15,000 were paid to him by Fayyaz Hussain Shah and the balance in the sum of Rs.5,000 was to be paid later. At the instance of the above Deputy Director, it was to be paid to the petitioner who demanded a further sum of Rs.500 for himself also from the above-said Fayyaz Hussain Shah. Latter reported the incident to Anti---Corruption Establishment, Rawalpindi. After taking down the statement of Fayyaz Hussain Shah and marking the currency notes of Rs.5,500, a raiding party headed by a Magistrate conducted the raid. After the tainted money was passed on by Fayyaz Hussain Shah to the petitioner, he signalled the raiding party who thereupon contacted the petitioner to hand over the tainted currency notes to it. At first, he denied having taken the money from Fayyaz Hussain Shah but in course of search of his person by a Head Constable of Anti---Corruption, he took out the tainted currency notes from a pocket of his waist--coat and threw them in the air which fell on the ground and were collected. In the statement of the petitioner recorded by the Magistrate at 5-30 p.m. On the day of raid, he admitted taking of the disputed money from Fayyaz Hussain Shah but denied that it was received as a bribe from him. After the formalities of raid were over, petitioner was apprehended by the police and ever since is behind the bars.
3. Fayyaz Hussain Shah charged Deputy Director, Housing and Physical Planning for demanding and taking a large amount of money from him as illegal gratification, as a part of a deal for effecting transfer of plot in his favour. Rs.20,000 were intended for the Deputy Director. According to Fayyaz Hussain Shah, Rs.15,000 were already paid to him and the balance was paid to the petitioner for its onward transfer to the said Deputy Director. Petitioner however, demanded an additional sum of Rs5W for him also. All these facts were at first stated to an officer of Anti-Corruption, Department, and, later repeated before the Magistrate. Learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption has also commented on the conduct of the Deputy Director, because according to the version unfolded, he Appeared to be a pivotal figure in the whole case. On 27-11-1991, Fayyaz Hussain Shah, exonerated the petitioner of the charge of taking bribe from him but fastened the charge on the Deputy Director, Sheikh Nisar Ahmad. Nonetheless, above-said officer was not being brought in for reasons best known to the investigating agency. From the above, it is evident 1 that the petitioner was found in possession of the tainted currency notes, which he later threw in the air and were collected and taken in custody by a member of the raiding- party. Further, petitioner himself admitted before the Raiding Magistrate that he was in possession of the tainted currency notes. Affidavit of Fayyaz Hussain Shah, for purposes of bail, is of no material avail. It appears to be a belated attempt by him to assist the petitioner out of the mess. Offence under section 161, P.P.C. Is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term extendable to three years or with fine or with both and is shown bailable in the Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure. As for the offence under section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, punishment prescribed is seven years with or without fine and is non-bailable. It is true that the punishment prescribed for the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. But that does not give rise to a right to claim bail in respect of it. The matter rests in the discretion of the Court to grant or refuse bail depending upon the, circumstances in each case. Law expects a Government servant to be honest in the discharge of his public duties.
4. Therefore, as compared to `section 161, P.P.C. Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, provided for a severe punishment. Public office is a trust. Its misuse is fraught with serious consequences. Unfortunately, and it is the public talk of which there is no use now to observe secrecy that corruption in public offices was rampant and rapidly gaining ground in its multi- dimensional facets. There is no doubt that presence of corruption is eroding efficiency of public service and mutilating its effective role. Therefore, when the offence of corruption is on fast increase; the Court cannot be expected as a helpless spectator. Law Court is not unnatural world. It does not sit in a vacuum and must not overlook the events taking place around it. In my opinion, the Court must play an effective role in taking notice of the prevailing atmosphere. Bribe taking as a reward for discharging public functions is a social crime and a serious offence against the whole society. It must be dealt with by a strong hand. In this view of the matter, petitioner's case does not qualify for bail pending his trial. Rabnawaz, Assistant Director, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Rawalpindi informed the Court that investigation of the offence is complete and challan for trial of the accused shall be filed within couple of days. The Officer must abide by his assurance given to the Court and file the challan in Court for trial without loss of time. Quick and fair trial is the right of the accused. Unnecessary incarceration causes many social problems including the deprivation and suffering of the dependants, family members of the accused by delaying the trial and decision of it. In the delay, the Court must not add to the suffering of the accused and his family. Therefore, the learned 8 Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, who has to hold the trial of the accused must attend to its early finalization, preferably within six months. In case, the trial of the accused is not finalized within this period, it shall be open to him to repeat the request for bail to this Court which might then consider its propriety. With these observations, bail, at this stage, is denied to the accused- petitioner and his petition for bail dismissed.
5. Records be returned to the Deputy Director, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Rawalpindi.