' Appellant Mehmood Ahmad was a Traffic Constable and he was trapped while accepting bribe in the form of a 100-Rupee tainted currency note vide judgment, dated 29-12-1987 and was sentenced by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Karachi to suffer R.I. For 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs,1,000 or undergo further one month's R.I. In default.
2. The facts of the case are that on 29-1-1983 Anti-Corruption Police received information that certain traffic constables were forcibly demanding illegal gratification from Rs,100 to Rs,500 from the truck drivers and in case of non-payment false traffic cases were registered against them. On the basis of this information a raid under the supervision of Mr. Muhammad Usman Shahani, Magistrate First Class, Karachi was organised and since they were the Martial Law days Major Ikramul Haq of Martial Law Headquarters was also associated with the raid. A private truck driver Shabbir Ahmad of Truck No, PRD-7695 was persuaded to assist the Anti-Corruption Police. By taking the raiding party in his truck and offering the tainted money to any traffic constable who might demand the same. Faqeer Muhammad, Inspector of Anti-Corruption Establishment then passed on five tainted currency notes of Rs,100 each. The raiding party also took alongwith it Muhammad Ikram, a private person, to act as Mashir. The raiding party then boarded the truck and went about the city. Near the Cantt. Railway Station a traffic constable chased the truck in a Suzuki van, overtook it and made the truck stop and asked driver Shabbir Ahmad as to why he was carrying so many persons in the truck. The driver requested to be excused but the traffic constable threatened to challan him and took out his note book. On further pleading of the driver the traffic constable demanded Rs,100. Driver Shabbir Ahmed then paid him Rs,100 out of the tainted money earlier handed over to him by Anti-Corruption Inspector. Immediately after this was done, the traffic constable was surrounded by the raiding staff which disclosed its identity whereupon the constable threw the currency note on the, ground but it was picked up and was found to be one of the tainted currency notes given to driver Shabbir Ahmad. The constable was then arrested and he disclosed his name as Mehmood Ahmad. The raid had taken place at 10-45 hours and the F.I.R.
Was eventually recorded the same day at 15-40 hours as Crime No,15/83 of Police Station Anti- Corruption Karachi under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Anti-Corruption Act, 1947.
In support of its case the prosecution examined P.W.1 Muhammad Usman Shahani, Additional City Magistrate, Karachi who had supervised the raid P.W.2 Major lkramul Haq of D.M.L.A. Headquarters, Karachi, P.W.3 Shabbir Ahmad the driver of the truck and P.W.4 Faqeer Muhammad Inspector of the Anti-Corruption Establishment, Karachi. P.W. Muhammad Ikram was given up as he had reportedly left Karachi and was no more traceable. The appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C.
And he said nothing except denying the prosecution story. As to why the prosecution witnesses had deposed against him, he stated that they were set up by the Anti-Corruption Police. The appellant did not lead any defence evidence and vide judgment, dated 1st November, 1986 he was found guilty and sentenced to undergo R.I. For 3 months and to pay fine of Rs,1,000 or to further undergo R.I. For one month in default of payment of fine. The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No,212 of 1986 and this Court vide judgment, dated 24th May, 1987 accepted the same and remanded the case to the trial Court for enabling the appellant to examine himself on oath under section 342(2), Cr.P.C. And to lead defence evidence if he was so inclined. After the remand of the case the appellant examined himself on oath as D.W.1. In this statement he stated that on the relevant date he was posted at Hoshang Chowk Clifton Bridge when some persons wanted him to take them to Korangi but he refused whereupon one of those persons misbehaved with him and he had, as retaliation, slapped him and after this he was arrested and taken to Artillery Maidan Police Station and thereafter falsely implicated in this case. He further stated that one Bashir had come to meet him at the Artillery Maidan Police Station and he had narrated the true fact to him. This Bashir Ahmad was examined by the appellant as D.W.2 and he stated That he had a radio shop, that the appellant was his relative that a police constable of Artillery Maidan Police Station had informed him about arrest of the appellant whereupon he had gone to the police station and had met the appellant and there the appellant had informed him that a truck driver was carrying some persons in his truck and there was exchange of harsh words between him (the appellant) and truck driver and after that he was arrested. Learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption then again heard the counsel of the appellant and P.D.S.P. On behalf of the State and vide judgment dated 29th December, 1987 again convicted him and awarded the same sentence. The appellant has again come in appeal. Learned counsel of the appellant and learned State counsel have been heard and record has been perused.
3. Learned counsel of the appellant argued that there were contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses but he could not point out to any alleged contradiction. The appellant admitted in his cross-examination that the prosecution witnesses were neither known to him nor were inimically inclined towards him. The evidence of all the prosecution witnesses is consistent with the prosecution story and fully supports it. There is no reason to support that a Magistrate and a Major of the Army would take into their head to falsely implicate the appellant. The defence set up by the appellant is unbelievable. In his 342, Cr.P.C. Statement he had taken no defence whatsoever but when he was later on examined on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. He claimed that some persons met him when he was on duty at Hoshang Chowk Clifton Bridge and asked him to take him to Korangi but he refused to do so as he was on duty. He did not name any of those persons who obviously must have been known to him because otherwise they would not have asked him to take them to Korangi. He also did not give the name of that particular person out of them who had misbehaved with him and was slapped by him. He also did not disclose by whom he was arrested and taken to Artillery Maidan Police Station.. Whereas the appellant had stated in examination-in-chief that on 29.1-1983 he was posted at Hoshang Chowk Clifton Bridge, in cross- examination he stated that on that date he was posted at the roundabout near Cantonment Railway Station, which is the place where, according to the prosecution version, the incident took place. The solitary defence witness D.W.2 Bashir Ahmed has not supported defence version taken by the appellant and merely stated that the appellant had informed him that "the truck driver had taken some persons. There was exchange of harsh words between him and the truck driver and he was arrested". He said nothing about the story set up by the appellant in his 340(2), Cr.P.C.
Statement as to some of his friends wanting him to take them to Korangi or of his refusal to oblige them and their misbehaviour and his slapping them. D.W.2 Bashir Ahmad had evidently forgotten the prepared story and therefore, gave a vague statement. I find no substance in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant.
4. 1 earned counsel of the appellant also stated that lenient view may be taken in view of the fact that the appellant has long unblemished service of 21/22 years. This claim of learned counsel of the appellant is rather very strange in the face of the fact that the appellant himself while examining himself under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. In September, 1987 gave his age as 27 years which means that on the date of occurrence, which is January, 1983 he must have been 4 years' younger than 27 years, that is, 23 years of age. So, if the learned counsel were to be believed, it would follow that appellant had joined, police service at the age of one year. This is too absurd a conclusion to be contemplated. Even so, learned trial Court had already shown sufficient leniency by awarding only 3 months' rigorous imprisonment whereas the circumstances of the case dearly warranted a more stiff sentence.
5. For the above-noted reasons I find no merit in this appeal and the same is rejected. The appellant is on bail. He is directed to surrender for undergoing the sentence awarded to him by the trial Court.