' Sajjad Hussain Shah appellant was tried by the learned Special Judge (Central), Faisalabad, for the offence under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, who found him guilty vide judgment, dated 9-3-1992 and sentenced him to suffer R.I. For a period of two years and a fine of Rs,1,000 or in default of its payment to suffer further R.I. For a period of three months under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. By this appeal filed under section 410, Cr.P.C. Read with section 10 of the Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958, Sajjad Hussain Shah appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence.
2. The electricity connection of the tube-well of Muhammad Mumtaz complainant P.W.2 situated within the area of Shahpur District Sargodha was disconnected on 27-4-1985. The said complainant paid the arrears of the electricity charges, the current bill amounting to Rs,50 and an amount of Rs,225 demanded by WAPDA. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the S.D.O., Shahpur who directed him to furnish the Test Report. His application was marked to Syed Sajjad Hussain Shah appellant who also asked the complainant to furnish the Test Report and also informed the complainant that the Test Report could be made available on payment of Rs,1,000. The complainant obtained the Test Report from a Contractor on payment of Rs,35 who produced the same before the appellant which was discarded by him. Between the complainant and the appellant the amount was settled at Rs,300 which the complainant considered as the bribe who informed Muhammad Iqbal Qureshi, Inspector F.I.A. P.W.3.
3. After obtaining the permission from the District Magistrate concerned the raid was conducted.
Ch. Nazir Ahmad, Magistrate 1st Class, P.W.1 was deputed to supervise the raid. The statement Exh.P.B. Of the complainant was recorded. The said Magistrate received the amount of Rs,300 with currency notes of the denomination Rs,100 each (P.1 to P.3). The amount was returned to the complainant for handing over the same to the appellant. The raiding party. Comprised Muhammad Mumtaz complainant P.W.2, Muhammad Iqbal Qureshi, Inspector P.W.3, which was supervised by Ch. Nazir Ahmad, M.I.C. P.W.1 The raiding party went to the office of the appellant. The members of the party sat on the bench lying opposite to the table of the appellant. Muhammad Mumtaz complainant presented the Form regarding the restoration of the electricity connection before Sajjad Hussain Shah appellant. He took out another Form regarding Test Report, filled it and delivered to Muhammad Jamil, Line Superintendent sitting on the other table. The tainted money of Rs,300 was handed over to Sajjad Hussain Shah appellant who was holding the same in his right hand when Ch. Nazir Ahmad, raiding Magistrate 1st Class stood up introduced himself and recovered the amount which he took into his possession vide memo. Exh.P.C. Attested by Muhammad Mumtaz complainant. The Forms filled at the spot were also taken by him which he gave to the S.D.O. For the restoration of the connection. He recorded the statements of the complainant, the appellant (accused and Constable Naseeb Ahmad. The appellant was taken into custody. After completing the investigation and obtaining the requisite sanction, the appellant was challaned. ,
4. The appellant was charged under section 161, P.P.C. And under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, who pleaded not guilty thereto. At the trial the prosecution examined Ch. Nazir Ahmad, M.I.C. P.W.1 Mumtaz Hussain complainant P.W.2 and Muhammad Iqbal Qureshi, Circle Inspector P.W.3. The appellant met the charge and took up the plea that he had been involved in place of Abdul Ghafoor, Eine Superintendent who was not available. He admitted having produced the currency note P.1 to P.3 to the Magistrate. He did not produce the defense evidence. However, he appeared under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. On oath in his own defense, when he stated that he had been falsely implicated. When cross-examined, he denied the suggestions put to him which were according to the prosecution.
5. On the assessm ent of the evidence available on record, learned trial Court found the appellant guilty and convicted him as expressed above.
6. The case of the prosecution rests on the statements of Ch. Nazir Ahmad, M.I.C. P.W.1, Muhammad Mumtaz P.W.2 and Zafar Ali Qureshi, (Muhammad Iqbal Qureshi) Inspector, P.W.3. Both Ch. Nazir Ahmad, M.I.C. P.W.1 and Muhammad Iqbal Qureshi, Inspector, P.W.3 supported the prosecution case.
Muhammad Mumtaz complainant P.W.2 stated that the amount of Rs,300 was demanded by Abdul Ghafoor, Line Superintendent from him to whom he went alongwith the raiding party who was not available and Sajjad Hussain Shah appellant took Rs,300 (P.1 to P.3) from him promising to pass on the money to Abdul Ghafoor. According to him the Magistrate recorded his statements Exh.P.B. And Exh.P.D.
7. The main contention of the learned counsel for Sajjad Hussain Shah appellant is that Muhammad Mumtaz complainant has not supported the prosecution case as he stated that he had not given the amount to Sajjad Hussain Shah Appellant as bribe and that he paid the amount to be delivered to Abdul Ghafoor, Line Superintendent. He added that Muhammad Mumtaz complainant was declared as hostile witness and thus in view of the ruling Abdul Razzaq Rathore v.
The State PLD 1992 Kar. 39 his statement could not be relied upon. In my view the dictum in the aforesaid ruling is not applicable in the case in hand because in the present case Muhammad Mumtaz seems to have given the intentional concession to Sajjad Hussain Shah appellant. He made the statement Exh.P.B. Before Ch. Nazir Ahmad, M.I.C., P.W.1, when the raiding party was prepared and also made his statement Exh.P.D. After the tainted money was recovered. It is in the statement of Muhammad Mumtaz P.W.2 that he handed over the amount of Rs,300 to Sajjad Hussain Shah, appellant which was recovered from his hand by Ch. Nazir Ahmad, M.I.C. Who took into possession the same vide memo. Exh.P.C. Attested by him.
8. It was further argued that there was no evidence that tainted money was demanded or received as bribe or that the raiding party heard the talk when the money was passed as the bribe. The statements, of Ch. Nazir Ahmad, M.I.C. P.W.1 and Muhammad Iqbal Qureshi, Inspector P.W.3 are enough to rebut this assertion. The money was paid in the presence of Ch. Nazir Ahmad, M.I.C. And Muhammad Iqbal Qureshi, Inspector who had no previous animosity against the appellant. It was at the instance of Muhammad Mumtaz complainant that the said. P. Ws. Started the proceedings which culminated in the recovery of the tainted money in the sum of Rs,300 produced as P.1 to P.3.
Whole of the affair was seen by the raiding Magistrate and his statement cannot be taken lightly as desired by the learned counsel for the appellant.
9. The assertion of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had no concern with the restoration of the electricity connection which was the job of Abdul Ghafoor, Line Superintendent has failed to impress me because Muhammad Mumtaz complainant P.W.3 handed over the amount of Rs,300 in the form of three currency notes of Rs,100 each (P.1 to P.3) to Sajjad Hussain Shah appellant. No doubt, he gave the intentional concession to the appellant that the said amount was to be delivered to Abdul Ghafoor, Line Superintendent, but that would not be enough to exonerate the appellant. The said amount was paid to the appellant and during the course of his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. He has admitted that the same was recovered by the Raiding Magistrate from his hand. With the material produced by the prosecution, I am in agreement with the learned State counsel that the appellant cannot escape his criminal liability and that proper sentence has been awarded to him.
' For what has been said above, I dismiss this appeal. The benefit under section 382-B is granted to the appellant.
10. The appellant is absent. He is on bail. He shall be got arrested by the learned trial Court in accordance with law to undergo the aforesaid sentence.