' This appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha and Faisalabad Divisions, with the Headquarters at Sargodha, whereby on 22-4-1987 he convicted Muhammad Siddique appellant under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for one month R.I. And a fine of Rs,2,000 or in default of the payment thereof to undergo further R.I. For one month. The appellant was working as Secretary, Arbitration Council, Halqa Nos. 1 to 4, 71-74-75, Municipal Corporation under Dr. Muhammad Boota, D.W.1 Councillor at the time of occurrence. The allegations against him was that he had demanded Rs,100 for the issuance of attested copy of Nikahnama of Abdul Hameed and Mst. Zareena Begum registered on 3-8-1973. P.W.4 Khalid Raza complainant had moved an application on 22-5-1984 for obtaining attested copy to the Chief Officer, Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad, who had marked the same to the appellant. P.W.4 had met in that connection to the appellant on 26-9-1985 who had demanded Rs,100 as illegal gratification. P.W.4 had promised to pay him in his office on 27-5-1984 at 6-00 p.m.
A raiding party was constituted under the supervision of P.W.1 Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Nohria, M.I.C., P.W.2 Raja Muhammad Inayat Ullah, Inspector at that time and now D.S.P. And P.W.3 Ch. Muhammad Khan, S.C.O./A.C.E. Alongwith P.W.4 complainant. The complainant reached the office of the appellant, took him out and paid him Rs,100 i,e. Two currency notes of Rs,50 denomination each, P.1 and P.2. The raid party was present on the other side of the road. It was signalled by P.W.4 which arrived and apprehended the appellant.
2. It has been vehemently argued before this Court that neither the conversation between the appellant and the complainant P.W.4 was heard by P.W.1 nor they had witnessed the passing of bribe money as the faces of the complainant and the accused were towards the road. The raid party was present at a distance of 100 yards from the above place, where P.1 and P.2 the tainted money were passed on. P.W.1 during examination stated that be had not overheard the talk between the complainant and the accused when the bribe money was delivered; and the complainant and the accused were 100 yards away from them. P.W.2 Raja Inayat Ullah DSP stated during cross-examination that it was correct that simply on the signal of the complainant the raid party started towards the accused and the complainant, and that he did not overhear the talk between them. P.W3 Muhammad Khan, S.I. Joined the raid party and had witnessed the recovery of P.1 and P.2 from the left side shirt pocket of the appellant, which was secured vide memo Exh.P.C.
Attested by him. During cross-examination P.W3 stated that he did not overhear talk between the complainant and the accused as well as had not viewed passing of the tainted money. P.W.4 complainant during cross-examination stated that Mst. Zareena as well as Abdul Hamid whose Nikah Nama's attested copy was needed by him were not related to him and that he had no connection with them. P.W.4 also stated that the appellant had informed him that he shall give him copy of Nikah Nama or his subordinate clerk shall provide copy thereof which had been registered.
P.W.4 had delivered petition with the tainted money notes to the appellant saying that he may prepare copies so that he might collect the same on his second visit and also that after preparation of copy the accused may supply it and the remaining change of money after deduction of copying fee to Dr. Muhammad Boota. P.W.4 had also told the appellant that he would collect copies and the remaining change from Dr. Muhammad Boota and also that in case the appellant did not find time to contact Dr. Muhammad Boota he might keep the copy and the change with him till such time when he would contact him again to collect the same. He also admitted that Malik Bashir son of Fazal Hussain had asked him to get prepared copies of Nikahnama relating to Mst. Zareena and Abdul Hamid, and he told that he did not know that Malik Bashir was a marginal witness of the Nikahnama Exh.D.B. He also denied the suggestion that Malik Muhammad Bashir had requested the appellant to register a false Nikah between Muhammad Din, a dead person and Mst. Mumtaz Begum or that the appellant refused. He denied the knowledge of a criminal case registered at police station Gulberg, Faisalabad for forgery of a Nikahnama vide F.I.R. Dated 7-10-1981 Exh.DA. Against Malik Muhammad Bashir and others under sections 506, 468, 471, 419, 420, P.P.C. P.W.4 also denied the suggestion that in order to take revenge from the appellant for his refusal to accept the request of Malik Muhammad Bashir got a false case registered against him.
3. In Anti-corruption cases the moment the prosecution is able to show that the money was passed through a decoy witness to the accused, a presumption arises undei section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 that the money in question was received as illegal gratification, but the presumption is not an absolute one and is rebuttable. In the instant case P.W.4 the complainant had no concern whatsoever or relationship with Mst. Zareena Begum and Abdul Hamid and he had no occasion to apply for the attested copy of Nikahnama Exh.D.B. Malik Bashir who is stated to be inimical towards the appellant, is a marginal witness, was also involved in a criminal case pertaining to the preparation of a forged Nikahnama vide F.I.R. Exh.DA. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 had not overheard the conversation between the appellant and the complainant P.W.4.
Moreover, they were at a distance of 100 yards from both of them. P.W.4 has specifically stated in cross-examination that he had handed over money to the appellant alongwith the petition for supply of copy with an undertaking that he would receive the same alongwith the remaining amount after deduction of the charges of copying branch. The appellant while making statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. As well as under section 340, Cr.P.C. On oath had stated that he did not demand or receive any bribe.
4. I have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and I am of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Pursuant to the above discussion, the appeal is accepted and giving the appellant benefit of doubt he is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged.