This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore whereby he on 3-5-1979 convicted Lad Khan appellant under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to one year's R.I. And a fine of Rs.100, in default thereof to further R.I. For six months.
2. The appellant was posted as Headmaster, Government Middle School Wahga. The charge against him is that he demanded and then accepted Rs.50 from Mst. Saidan as illegal gratification for appointing the husband of her paternal-aunt as peon. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case prosecution examined three witnesses. Mst. Saidan appeared to prove the demand and acceptance of tainted currency notes as bribe by the appellant from her. Sarfaraz Khan Magistrate and Raja Muhammad Ayyub, Inspector Anti-Corruption 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. While admitting the receipt of tainted currency notes, he explained that he was given currency notes by Mst. Saidan for purchasing medicine for her brother's wife. In defence he produced 3 witnesses.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the tainted currency notes were passed on to the appellant as bribe.
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 with care. I find that the receipt of tainted currency notes by the appellant having been admitted; the material question for determination is as to whether the same were received by him as illegal gratification or not. Since the Magistrate and the Inspector had not heard the talk which preceded the passing on of the currency notes to the appellant, therefore, Mst. Saidan alone remains in the field. In the circumstances of the case, I am not prepared to place implicit reliance on the uncorroborated testimony of a decoy witness, inasmuch as, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the reasonable possibility of the correctness of the statement made by the appellant is very much there.
7. For what has been stated above, giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charge.
N.H.Q./L-16/L