' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Judge in Chamber whereby his appeal against conviction and sentence under section 161, P.P.C.
Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was dismissed. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to one year R.I. With fine of Rs,1,000 or in default one month R.I.
2. According to the prosecution the complainant was a Cashier in a Firm M/s. Saga Sports Ltd., Sialkot. As the electricity bill for the month of January 1984 was in excess of Rs,562, in order to get it corrected, he went to the Revenue Office, WAPDA where the petitioner, a clerk in that office met him and demanded Rs,250 as illegal gratification. On the same day the petitioner visited the office of the complainant and was asked to come the next day. A trap was accordingly laid and the petitioner was apprehended with tainted currency notes. In his statement the petitioner denied the allegations and stated that his father was a manufacturer of Nawar and had supplied the same to the complainant, who had failed to make the payment. On this account he and his father had altercation with the complainant and hence this case has been framed against him although he had come to recover Rs,250, which was due to his father on account of the supply of Nawar. The petitioner was, however, convicted and sentenced as stated above, which has been maintained by the impugned judgment.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Besides the contradictions pointed out which, according to him, are material, he contended that although the bill which was alleged to be excessive and was the basis of the case, was not produced at any stage of the proceedings. According to the learned counsel in the absence of the said bill or any evidence from WAPDA to prove it, the prosecution case cannot stand. Leave is granted.