' MUKHTAR AHMED JUNEJO, J.--- Acquittal of respondent Riffat . Jillani by learned Special Judge, A.C.E., Hyderabad has been challenged by State.
2. According to the prosecution on 5-5-1982 the respondent as a Clerk in Office of the Mukhtiarkar, Hala demanded from complainant Muhammad Sideman illegal gratification of Rs,150 for getting issued a letter from the Mukhtiarkar to concerned Tapedar for certain entries in the record of rights, in pursuance of a decision given by the Assistant Commissioner, Hala. In response to the demand, the complainant paid Rs,110 to the respondent and promised to pay remaining amount of Rs,40 after a few days. Complainant reported the matter to the Anti-Corruption Establishment on 9-5- 1992 and on the same day Circle Officer A.C.E. Atique Abad after registering the case, arranged the trap at Hala. He took Magistrate Allah Bachayo Almani and Mashirs Moula Bux and Ikram to the Taluka Office, Hala, where the complainant in company of Mashir Moula Bux went inside and passed on to the respondent four tainted currency notes of Rs,10 each which were earlier given to him under a Mashirnama, Mashir Moula Bux gave such signal to the raiding party. On getting the signal the Inspector, the Magistrate and Mashir Ikram entered office room of the respondent and searched his person and secured all the four tainted currency notes under a Mashirnama. On completion of investigation the respondent was challaned.
3. Prosecution examined, during the trial P.Ws. Muhammad Suleman Exh.12 (complainant), Moula Bux Exh.19, Muhammad Nooh Exh.24, Allah Bachayo Exh.27 and Atique Ahmed Exh.29.
4. In his statement Exh.33, the respondent admitted that he was Senior Clerk in Office of the Mukhtiarkar, Hala on 5th May, 1982 when the complainant moved his application Exh.13 before the Mukhtiarkar for mutation of Revenue Record and that the Mukhtiarkar had sent the application to him with his endorsement for issuing necessary letter to the Tapedar for mutation. Respondent explained that he received the application Exh.13 through the Assistant Mukhtiarkar, before whom he submitted on the same day the letter for the Tapedar. He denied having demanded or accepted any illegal gratification. He also denied recovery of tainted notes of Rs,40 from his possession. He admitted his initials on the letter Exh.17 and its office copy Exh.18, addressed to the Tapedar, but denied having handed over the letter Exh.17 to the complainant after taking from him tainted notes of Rs,40.
5. The respondent neither gave his statement on oath nor led evidence in defence.
6. We have heard Mr. S. Riaz Ahmed, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Muhammad Jamil Zubedi, Advocate for the respondent. With assistance of learned counsel we have gone through the entire evidence recorded in the case.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution had proved its case beyond doubt and that learned trial Court had misappropriated the evidence and had erroneously failed in bringing home guilt to the accused. It was next argued that onus was on the respondent to prove that the tainted money recovered was not illegal gratification.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that complainant Muhammad Suleman Exh.12 was of questionable character having complained to the Anti-Corruption Establishment against Mukhtiarkar Umed Ali, Supervising Tapedar Muhammad Arab and Tapedar Ali Muhammad Kaka in the past. It was next argued that there were glaring contradictions about recovery of the tainted money and about recovery of the P.C. Containing letter Exh.17 from the Tapedar. Learned counsel criticised action of Magistrate Allah Bachayo Exh.27 in preparing raiding report in office of Anti- Corruption Police. Reference was made to evidence of Mashir Moula Bux Exh.19 who had admitted that police took him to Hyderabad where he was made to sign certain documents. This, according to learned counsel, indicated that seizure memo. Was prepared at Hyderabad. It was next argued that the Anti-Corruption Police should have requisitioned services of a local Magistrate rather than bringing a Magistrate from Hyderabad to supervise the raid at Hala. Learned counsel for the respondent cited cases of (i) Muhammad Nazir v. Muhammad All 1986 SCM R 1441, (ii) State v.
Muhammad Amin and others 1985 PCr.LT 472 and (iii) Abdul Hameed v. State 1983 PCr.LJ 1435.
9. Learned counsel for the State was reticent on the points raised by learned counsel for the respondent. His only emphasis was on the point that the respondent had to prove that the money recovered from him was not the illegal gratification.
10. We find that judgment of acquittal is based on sound grounds. There A are contradictions in the prosecution evidence. As per Magistrate Allah Bachayo Exh.27, and Circle Officer Atique Ahmed Exh.29 the tainted money was recovered from shirt pocket of the respondent. As per Mashir Moula Bux Exh.19 it was secured from Kurta pocket of the respondent. As per complainant Muhammad Sulleman Exh.12 the respondent kept the tainted money in a drawer of his table. The complainant was standing at the place of raid all along till recovery of the tainted money, as per Moula Bux Exh.19. Yet the complainant did not state if the respondent put the tainted notes in his shirt pocket after taking out the same from drawer of his table. In respect of search of the respondent, Moula Bux Exh.19 said that search was taken by the Circle Officer. Latter said that search was taken by the Magistrate. Mashir Moula Bux Exh.19 was of questionable character as he admitted in cross- examination that he was accused in an injury case. Moreover, he belongs to Hussainabad, Hyderabad and was a chance witness at Hala. Anti-Corruption people should have picked up a local person to act as Mashir, rather than the person who happened to be present at the bus stop of Hala as cleaner of a Suzuki. The bus stop at Hala is also at some distance from the place of raid.
Conduct of Magistrate Allah Bachayo in preparing the raiding report Exh.28 in office of the Anti- Corruption Police is deplorable. Presumably he must be having his own office as an Assistant Mukhtiarkar and Magistrate. There is contradiction C about Mashir Moula Bux having been taken to Hyderabad for his signatures. The raiding Magistrate did not record any statement of the accused.
The letter Exh.17 was lying in a P.C. Which was secured from the Assistant Mukhtiarkar by the Anti- Corruption Police, as admitted in cross by Muhammad Nooh Exh.24 who was Mukhtiarkar Hala on the relevant date. This belies prosecution case that letter Exh.17 was given to the complainant by the respondent after acceptance of the tainted money.
11. After assessm ent of the evidence we find that the trial Court neither violated any principle of law nor it ignored any material fact in appraising the evidence on record and the conclusion drawn by the trial Court did not suffer from any patent error. Consequently, we dismiss this appeal.