1. ' This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 8-7-1992 of the Special Judge Anti- Corruption, Gujranwala, Camp at Sialkot, convicting the appellant under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentencing him to R.I. For 18 months and a fine of Rs,10,000. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was ordered to further undergo six months' R.I.
2. ' The prosecution story in brief is that F.LR. Exh.P.A. Was recorded at Anti-Corruption Establishment, Sialkot, at the instance of Muhammad Munir P.W.2 on 5-3-1990. It was the case of the complainant that he wanted to sell his land in Kot Bakhran, Tehsil Daska for which he contacted the appellant Halqa Patwari for the supply of copy of Fard who demanded Rs,1,200 as an illegal gratification for it.
3. He reported the matter to P.W.3. Rana Shaukat Hayat, the then Circle Officer Anti-Corruption Establishment, Sialkot, who recorded the F.I.R. And thereafter on his written request Exh.P.D. a raiding party was constituted. The complainant produced ten currency notes of Rs,100 denomination each P.1 to P.10. After completing the formalities the raiding party alongwith the complainant set out towards Daska to effect the raid. The appellant was having his office at Sumbarial Road, Daska, on the first floor of a building. The complainant was sent inside of his office who asked him about the Fard. On his demand he passed on the tainted money to him. Thereafter, the complainant signalled the raiding party who in turn entered the room. The tainted money was recovered from the pocket of the appellant's shirt from his personal search. The Magistrate recorded the supplementary statement Exh.P.C. Of the complainant. Thereafter, he also recorded the statement Exh.P.J. Of the appellant wherein he took up the plea that he never demanded any money from the complainant who had given him Rs,1,000 on his own.
4. ' In order to establish the case, the prosecution examined four witnesses. Munir Ahmad complainant appeared as P.W.2 and reiterated the stance earlier taken by him in the F.I.R. As well as in his supplementary statement. Rana Shaukat Hayat D.S.P., C.IA., the then Circle Officer, Anti- Corruption, and Ch. Abdul Rashid, M.I.C., appeared as P.W.3 and P.W.4 respectively. Both of them have corroborated the stance taken by the complainant. They fully supported the recovery of the tainted money from the personal search of the appellant.
5. ' Lamed counsel has argued that the appellant cannot be convicted on an uncorroborated sole testimony of the complainant Munir Ahmad (P.W.) who is inimical. The other two witnesses have neither seen the passing of the money nor heard the conversation exchanged between the complainant and the appellant at the time of alleged payment. It has also been argued that certain other persons were present at the time of alleged raid but their testimony were not recorded by the prosecution. The stance put up by the appellant was that Muhammad Sharif D.W., his maternal-uncle gave Rs,1,000 to the complainant Munir Ahmad for their onward transmission to him. The complainant in fact paid this amount to Saeed Ahmad D.W.2, as he was in a hurry. It is argued that the money was paid to the appellant by Saeed Ahmad D.W.2 and all these aspects have not been appreciated in its true perspective by the learned trial Court.
6. ' I have considered the contentions and have gone through the entire evidence. The case of the prosecution as put up by the complainant Munir Ahmad P.W. Has been fully supported by Circle Officer Rana Shaukat Hayat P.W.3 and Ch. Abdur Rashid M.I.C. P.W.4, respectively. Both of these witnesses have got no animus whatsoever to implicate the appellant in this case. He made a statement Exh.P.J. At the time of his apprehension and took up the plea that he did not demand the money and the complainant had given him the same on his own. However, during the course of trial he took a complete somersault and stated that the money was given to the complainant Munir Ahmad by Muhammad Sharif his maternal-uncle who earlier took a loan from him. He took up the plea that the money was actually paid to him by Saeed Ahmad D.W.2. This belated story put up by him does not inspire any confidence. On the one hand he has taken up the plea that the complainant was inimical towards him and on the other hand he has taken up the stance that Muhammad Sharif D.W. His maternal-uncle has sent money to him through the complainant.
7. Muhammad Sharif is admittedly a maternal-uncle of the appellant and the plea taken up by the defence hardly fits in the circumstances of the case. The other argument that neither the incriminating conversation was heard nor passing of tainted money was seen is devoid of any force. It has come on record that the office of the appellant is situated on a Choubara. In these circumstances the hearing of incriminating conversation or visual observation of the passing of the tainted money was not possible. Both of these witnesses who have recovered the tainted money from his personal search have no animus against him. They are completely independent witnesses. Nothing has come on record that why these two witnesses shall implicate the appellat in this case of corruption. Reliance in this respect is placed upon Muhammad Naeem v. The State 1989 P Cr. L J 1438 wherein it has been held that the hearing of conversation or passing of money changing hands arc not sine qua non. It is to be appreciated that the appellant took two contradictory pleas; one at the time of his apprehension vide Exh.P.J. And the second at the time of making statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. It has been held in Ghulam Nabi v. The State 1975 SCMR 164 that with the recovery of tainted money from the appellant onus shifted upon him to explain how and for what purpose he got the tainted money. In the case in hand as discussed earlier the contradictory pleas taken by the appellant do not inspire any confidence while on the other hand prosecution version stands fully established by the testimony of complainant Munir Ahmad P.W.2 which stands fully corroborated by the testimony of Circle Officer Rana Shaukat Hayat P.W.3 and Ch. Abdur Rashid M.I.C. P.W.4. Accordingly, I find no reason to interfere in this matter and dismiss the appeal.