The appellant Naseer Ahmed was tried by the Special Judge-cum---Enquiry Officer, Anti- Corruption, Sukkur, for offences under section 161, P. P. C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and convicted of the said offences and sentenced to R. I. For three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for two months.
Aggrieved by this judgment of the Special Judge-cum-Enquiry Officer, the appellant has filed an appeal through Mr. A. M. Khoja, Advocate who has appeared for him and the State has been represented before me by Mr. Fasihuddin.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the father of complainant Nawab owned land in Deh Sukhpur in Taluka Sakrand of the Nawabahah District. After the death of the father of the complainant the latter was entitled to inherit from his father. It seems that there was some dispute in relation to ownership of survey Nos. 402, W3, 404, 407, 389, 391 and 624 in the said Sukhpur Deh which necessitated the filing of a suit by complainant Nawab Khan in the Court of Civil Judge at Nawabshah. This suit was decreed on the 31August, 1965 on admission of the defendants. In the result the complainant Nawab Khan was entitled to 1/3 of the property in dispute. It seems that complainant Nawab Khan made various applications to the Mukhtiar kar of Sakrand Taluka, requesting for mutation in the Record-of----Rights. I three out of such applications have been produced on record and the same are dated 14May, 1966, 14th June, 190 and 22September, 1969.
Some correspondence and Rubkaris have been placed on record and the same indicate that out of the survey numbers mentioned by me above, survey Nos. 402, 403 and 404 were found to be Government property. Besides, survey No. 407 was found to be the property of one Ghulam Rasool Bhatti. In like manner survey Nos. 389 and 391 were also found to be standing in the names ofst rd th nd Muhammad Siddique, Muhammad Lakhmeer and Addullah Khan. However, it appears from the documents that have been placed on record, that the complainant Nawab Bhatti was paying the revenue assessm ent in respect of survey No. 389 and such survey number was the subject-matter of litigation in the civil Court where the complainant had obtained a decree in regard to such survey number. Suffice it to say that in spite of the civil Court decree the Revenue Record was not mutated so that the complainant Nawab Khan made an application addressed to the Registrar of the High Court on the 17of February, 1971 complaining that the decree of the civil Court was not being obeyed by the Revenue authorities and therefore, action in the nature of contempt of Court be taken against the Revenue authorities. Be that as it may, the case before us shows that the complainant was interested in obtaining mutation of the Record of Rights in his favour on the basis of the civil Court decree and the same was not being mutated by the Revenue authorities.
3. The prosecution case then is that the complainant Nawab Khan approached appellant Naseer Ahmed who was the Tapedar of the beat within which the disputed survey numbers were situate, and asked him to change the Revenue Record in his name but the appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 2,000 as illegal gratification for complying with the demand of the complainant. It appears that there were negotiations between the complainant and the appellant and this demand of Rs. 2,000 was reduced to Rs. i,200 and the complainant was asked by the appellant to pay him Rs. 60J on the day following the conclusion of these negotiations, and the balance of Rs. 600 was to be paid later.
To the same day which is 31August, 1970 at 1 p. m. The complainant reported to the Circle Officer Anti-Corruption, Nawabshah and a first information report was registered. In this first information report the complainant had stated that the appellant had agreed to receive a sum of Rs. 600 from him on the following day viz. On the 31st of August, 1970 either in the house of the appellant at Nawabshah or in the Taluka Office at Sakrand. On the following day viz. On the 1September, 1970, the Anti-Corruption Officer requested Mr. Pir Bus the Head Munshi and 3rd Class Magistrate to supervise the trap. Two mashirs namely P. W. Abdul Sattar, and Ghulam Hyder, were also called to witness the trap proceedings. In their presence a sum of Rs. 600 was paid to complainant Nawab Khan and a mashirnama in regard to such entrustment was prepared. The trap party consisting of the complainant, the Anti-Corruption Officer, the Magistrate, and the two mashirs thereafter proceeded to the house of the appellant situated its New Abadi GoliMar at Nawabshah. This happened in the morning hours. The complainant went upto the house of the appellant and returned and stated before the trap party that the appellant had gone out of the town and was likely to return in the morning. The trap proceedings were thereafter postponed until the same evening. At about 4.30 p.m. The entire party again went to the house of the appellant at Nawabshah. At that time the complainant alongwith mashir Ghulam Hyder entered the Otaq of the appellant, the door whereof was opened. The appellant received Rs. 600 from the complainant and put the same in the fold of his loincloth. Mashir Ghulam Hyder who had accompanied complainant Nawab Khan to the Otaq of the appellant gave a signal to the raiding party, and the raiding party entered the house of the appellant. The complainant informed the Anti-Corruption Officer that the appellant had kept the money in the fold of his loin cloth. On search the same amount was recovered and a mashirnama was prepared.
After the completion of the trap proceedings Muhammad Anwar, the Circle Officer, Anti-Corruption secured some correspondence from the office of the Mukhtiar kar of Sakrand and on completion of the remaining formalities concerning the case in the nature of obtaining sanction etc. The appellant was sent up to stand his trial in the Court of Special Judge-cum---Enquiry Officer, Sukkur and he has been convicted of the offences alleged against him.
4. The prosecution at the trial examined complainant Nawab, Magistrate Pir Bux, mashirs Abdul Sattar and Muhammad Anwar, the Circle Officer, Anti-Corruption.th st st
5. On a perusal of the evidence of the complainant, I find that he has given very convincing and true evidence in the case. He has clearly stated all the facts in relation to the transaction leading to the laying of the trap and recovery of the tainted money from the appellant. There can be no doubt that the complainant was interested in obtaining mutation of the Revenue Record in his favour on the basis of decree that he had obtained from the civil Court. In fact three applications were also produced on the record to show that since 1965, the complainant had been making repeated requests to the Revenue authorities to mutate the Revenue record in his favour on the basis of the decree. It is also very evident that in spite of the civil Court decree and the various applications that the complainant had made for the mutation of the record, the same was not mutated in his favour.
The complainant has further stated that he made repeated requests for mutation of the record and ultimately contacted the appellant who was the Tapedar of the range within which the disputed land was situate. The appellant made a demand of Rs. 2,000 for compliance with the request of the complainant, but this amount was ultimately reduced to Rs. 1,200 and it was agreed between the complainant and the appellant that out of this agreed amount of Rs. 1,200 a sum of Rs.
600 would be paid to the appellant on the following day via. On the 1st of September, 1970. The complainant thereafter, did not wait and went straight to the Circle Officer, Anti---Corruption Establishment and lodged a report which was recorded on the 31st of August, 1970. In this report the complainant had clearly stated that the appellant had agreed to take the money either at his house at Nawabshah or in the Taluka Office at Sakrand. Thereafter, the complainant along--with the trap party proceeded to the house of the appellant at Nawabshah and this was in the morning hours. The appellant was not found present in the house so that the complainant came and gave such information to the trap party and the raid was repeated in the evening at 4.30 p.m. At that time the complainant alongwith mashir Ghulam Hyder entered the house of the appellant who was present there and the complainant paid the amount to the appellant which was kept by the latter in the fold of his loin cloth. The trap party thereafter entered the house of the appellant at Nawabshah and the complainant at once informed the Anti-Corruption Officer that the appellant had kept the money in the fold of his loin cloth and the money was indeed recovered from there. In regard to the recovery of the money, the complainant is completely supported by the Magistrate Mr. Pir Bux, mashir Abdul Sattar and the Circle Officer Anwar Ahmed.
The appellant in his statement had stated that the money was recovered from his house but not from his person. In cross-examination of the wit--nesses he had suggested a defence that this money was found to be lying behind the door of the courtyard. Such suggestions in cross- examinations were denied by each and every witness. I have no hesitation in believing the prosecution evidence in regard to the money having been found from the person of the appellant and I disbelieve the defence of the appellant that the money was recovered behind the door of the house. There is only the word of the appellant on that point and I am not inclined to rely on that suggestion.
It has, however, been argued by Mr. A.I Mohammad Khoja, the learned counsel for the appellant that the complainant had earlier given threats to the appellant that in case the appellant did not mutate the revenue record in favour of the complainant he would implicate him in some case or cause some harm to him. As it is the complainant had denied having given any threats to the appellant but I cannot believe such allegation as is made by the appellant because if the complainant had earlier given threats to the appellant it would be most unnatural and rather unusual that the appellant would allow the complainant to enter into his house. The position that is clearly established on record and is not even disputed by the appellant is that the trap party entered the house of the appellant and at that time the complainant was present in the house. This would show that the com--plainant had never given any threats to the appellant.
The prosecution story however, is that Ghulam Hyder who was one of the mashirs had gone with the complainant to the house of the appellant and that it was this mashir who had given a signal to the trap party to come in the house and recover the tainted money. Bashir Ghulam Hyder however, has not been examined. In any case there is nothing on the record to indicate as to why mashir Ghulam Hyder was not examined. However, this point is not of any substantial nature because mashir Ghulam Hyder was also to give evidence only on the point of recovery of the tainted money from the appellant. In so far as the recovery of the tainted money is concerned, I find that the evidence of the complainant is very strongly corroborated by a Magistrate, the Circle Officer of the Anti-Corruption Establishment, and the co-mashir Abdul Sattar. Each one of these witnesses had clearly stated that the tainted money was found on the person of the appellant.
6. The learned Advocate for the appellant has additionally argued that on the points of conversation that took place between the appellant and the complainant, there is no corroboration of the word of the complainant. It is no doubt true that there is no corroboration of the word of the com--plainant because neither the Magistrate nor any other member of the trap party heard this conversation: However, what the law requires in the cases of this nature is corroboration of the word of the complainant. In the instant case that corroboration is found from circumstances of recovery of the tainted money, the further circumstance that the appellant was concerned with the mutation proceedings for which the complainant had made applications, and also by the report which the complainant has lodged on the previous day wherein he had stated that the appellant would accept one money from him on the following day at his house at Nawabshah or to the Taluka office at Sakrand. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the Circle Officer or the Magistrate or mashir Abdul Sattar were not giving true evidence. In fact there is no allegation of any enmity or hostility against any of these three witnesses. With regard to mashir Abdul Sattar it has been submitted by the learned Advocate that this witness used to sell cloth on the footpath and was for such reason under the influence of the police. In addition the learned Advocate has pointed out an omission, in the statement of this witness Abdul Sattar under section 164, Cr. P. C. That omission was only to the extent that the complainant did not inform the raiding party that the appellant had kept the money in the folds of the loincloth. I would say that the mere fact of mashir Abdul Sattar selling cloth on the footpath would not in any manner reduce the value of the testimony or show that he was under the influence of the police. Coming to the other omission I am of the view that it is of a very insubstantial character and in any case even in the statement under section 164, Cr. P. C. Abdul Sattar had stated that on a search for the currency notes the Anti---Corruption staff found six hundred rupees from the fold of loin cloth that the appellant was wearing. To my mind there was no contradiction and the omission, if at all, it could be considered to be an omission, was of a very insubstantial character which does not reduce the value of the evidence of Abdul Sattar.
The appellant has further stated that the amount was recovered from behind the door of the house from where he was arrested and that place was accessable to anyone. On that point as I have stated above the prosecution evidence is conclusive, and I can possibly see no reason to doubt the veracity of the testimony of four witnesses who have given evidence on the point and such evidence has not at all been shaken in cross-examination. Lastly it has been urged by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the appellant had nothing to do with mutation proceedings, and secondly that the appellant had already been influenced by the Mukhtiar kar that the land in question could not be mutated in his name. I am of the view that such criticism of the prosecution is absolutely fallacious. The appellant examined three defence witnesses, and Wali Muhammad who is a defence witness of the appellant has produced the record of the Taluka office. He has produced a document which is Exh. 9/B on the record and is a report given by the appellant to the Mukhtiar kar of Sakrand Taluka. In this document which is in the nature of an intra-office reference the appellant has stated that he had examined the Revenue Record in connection with the mutation of the same in favour of complainant Nawab Bhatti. He has further stated that some documents had been sent to the High Court in a pending appeal. In the same document the appellant has also written that survey Nos. 402, 403, 404 stand in the name of the Central Government and that the land revenue assessment of the same was being paid by complainant Nawab Bhatti and the same are in his possession. Similarly in regard to Survey Nos. 389, 391 and 624 it is stated in the same document which has been prepared by the appellant, and purports to be a report to the Mukhtiar kar, that the assessment in respect of these survey numbers is being paid by complainant Nawab Bhatti. In the face of all this correspondence it is absolutely inconceivable that the appellant was in no way concerned with the land in question or the mutation thereof. In fact such evidence has come through the defence witness who has been examined by the appellant himself. The appellant had stated in his section 342, Cr. P. C. Statement that he had taken charge of Tapo Jamalkirio on 19th December, 1970 viz., after the incident. To my mind this appears to be typographical error. As it is the appellant had been arrested in this case on the 1st of September, 1970. Normally he should have been suspended from service but in case he con--tinued to remain in service even thereafter, some evidence would have been available to the appellant and he could at least have produced his appoint--ment order showing that he took over charge of this Tapa on the 19th of December, 1970. No such evidence has been produced. In any case the documents that have been produced at the instance of the appellant himself conclusively show that the appellant was concerned with this Tapa and has something to do in his capacity as a Tapedar, in the matter of mutation of the record. There is as such sufficient material on the record to show clearly that the appellant was concerned with the mutation proceedings which had been initiated at the instance of the complainant.
7. Coming to the evidence of the three defence witnesses they have nothing to state in regard to the trap proceedings. They have been produced for the purpose of production of the record in relation to the disputed land. In fact it is the case of the prosecution that a dispute in regard to land did exist and if there was no dispute I would say there would be no occasion for the complainant paying a bribe to the appellant. In that view of the matter I find that the evidence of the defence witnesses is of no avail to the appellant.
8. On a consideration of all the aspects of the case I am satisfied that the guilt of the appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. I therefore, uphold the conviction and sentence that has been imposed on him and dismiss this appeal. The appellant who is on bail shall surrender to serve out the balance of his sentence.