1. ' WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Amjad Iqbal, petitioner herein, calls in question the judgment dated 15-3-1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby Criminal Appeal No, 145/90 filed by him against his conviction and sentence under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was dismissed.
2. ' The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the petitioner, a Sub-Inspector in the Cooperatives Department, demanded Rs,7,000 as illegal gratification for recommending the grant of loan to Muhammad Daud P.W. 1, who had applied for loan of Rs,3,50,000 on behalf of the. Society of which he was President. It was agreed that Rs,1,000 would be paid as advance before the processing of the application and the balance will be paid after the loan is sanctioned. The complainant informed the S.H.O., who arranged a raid under the supervision of Rao Tariq Ahmad, Magistrate Ist Class/P.W.3 and he, before embarking upon the raid, noted the numbers of notes of Rs,500 denomination and directed the complainant to pass them on to the petitioner. The raiding party stood outside the compound wall and the complainant passed on the tainted currency notes to the petitioner in the courtyard of his office and on his signal, the raiding party recovered the tainted money from the pocket of the accused/petitioner. His statement was recorded immediately after the recovery in which he acknowledged the receipt of Rs,1,000 but alleged that the same were paid to him for onward payment to Inspector and that he himself had not received any illegal gratification. The petitioner was put on trial before the learned Special Judge, who, after recording of the evidence produced before him, vide his judgment dated 15-3-1990, convicted and sentenced him to two years' R.I. With a fine of Rs,10,000 or in default six months' R.I. His appeal having failed through the impugned judgment, the necessity to file the instant petition for leave to appeal arose.
3. ' We have heard Mr. M.A. Zaffar, Advocate, for the petitioner, and have perused the record of the case.
4. The prosecution version is supported by Muhammad Daud P.W. 1, Saadullah Khan Inspector/P.W. 2 and Rao Tariq Ahmad Magistrate 1st Class/P.W. 3 who are all disinterested witnesses and have no ill-will or grudge against the petitioner. The accused/petitioner in his statement denied the recovery from him as well as his alleged statement before the Magistrate immediately after the recovery. In his statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C., he also denied any recovery by the Magistrate. He stated that he was standing at wagon stand near G.T.S. Bus Stand at about 5-00 p.m. And he was arrested by an Inspector and a Magistrate, taken to police station where his signatures were obtained on a blank paper forcibly. According to him, the complainant had strained relation with his relatives in the Local Bodies elections and had involved him falsely in the present case. The learned trial Court, relying on the deposition of the Magistrate as well as the Inspector coupled with the version of the complainant on oath and the recovery of tainted notes from the pocket of the petitioner, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty under section 161, Cr.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding and accepting illegal gratification to show favour to the complainant in the sanction of loan applied for by him. The petitioner, though offered some explanation in the initial statement, but resiled from it subsequently and attributed mala fide to the responsible officers. There being no merit in the appeal before the High Court, the same was rightly dismissed and we have no reason to differ with the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the two Courts below in holding the accused/petitioner guilty of the charge levelled against him.
5. ' Resultantly, finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.