' Kajeer Dad Khan appellant, a Line Superintendent, Electricity Branch, WAPDA, in Okara Town, has filed this appeal against the order dated 20th of June, 1970, of the learned Special Judge, Multan, Camp at Sahiwal, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 161, P. P. C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentenced to two months R. I. And a fine of Rs. 100 and in default of payment of fine, one month's R. I.
2. Bahawal P. W. 1, is a complainant in this case. His meter had been disconnected wrongly and the appellant demanded Rs. 30 to re-fix the same. Annoyed by this demand he contacted Muhammad Khan P. W., Sub-Inspector, on the 29th of June 1968. A formal F. I. R. Exh. P. A. Was recorded. After sanction for raid was obtained, the complainant was produced before the Magistrate who recorded his statement as well as prepared three currency notes of Rs. 10 denomination to be given as bribe to the appellant. The raiding party consisted of the complainant, Sub-Circle Officer, Magistrate, and a Foot Constable (not produced), proceeded towards the rendezovous. 'Within view of the Magistrate and Sub-Circle Officer the money was passed on to the appellant who put it in his pocket. However after the arrival of the Magistrate and Sub-Circle Officer, appellant threw the money on the ground wherefrom it was taken into possession. The Magistrate recorded the statement of the appellant which is Exh. P. B. The Magistrate Habib-ur-Rehman is P. W. 2, and Muhammad Khan is P. W.
4. In his statement before the Magistrate the appellant said that Mr. Hafeez, Clerk had borrowed Rs.
60 from him whereas the complainant contacted him and offered the money by saying that Mr. Hafeez has sent the money and that immediately thereafter the Magistrate and Sub-Circle Officer arrived there. This Hafeez appeared as D. W. 1 and confirmed that he had borrowed Rs. 60 from the appellant. In this examination under section 342, Cr. P. C. The appellant denied the charge of corruption and said that outside the office near a shop the complainant met him saying that Hafeez Clerk had sent the money that he pushed back the hand of the complainant by saying that he must bring money with a chit of Hafeez. He further stated that the case against him had been registered due to the enmity with Bahawal since he had disconnected his meter.
3. The testimony of the Magistrate and the Sub-Circle Officer is that the appellant put the tainted money in his pocket and on seeing the Magistrate and Police Officer threw the same on the ground wherefrom it was picked up by the Magistrate. It is obvious that the appellant had tried to improve his previous statement. I therefore accept that the tainted money was handed over by the complainant to the appellant who put the money into his pocket. On seeing the Magistrate and the Police Officer he put out the money from his pocket and threw it on the ground.
4. On the question of motive on intention with which money was accepted there is deposition of complainant P. W. 1 Bahawal only, with any corroboration. This complainant had been visiting the office of the Electricity Department and thereby acquired knowledge of relationship between the Hafeez and the appellant. He admitted in his cross-examination that appellant had borrowed some money to Hafeez. This knowledge provided him an opportunity. The complainant appears to be a professional person and had already got raid conducted against an overseer. The Courts have to be cautious in accepting the testimony of such a person. Therefore, I do not rule out the possibility of defence version, being true. The appellant may have accepted the money on the understanding that it was sent by Hafeez.
5. In these circumstances I am of the view that this case is not free from doubt. Giving benefit of doubt to the appellant, I acquit him of the charge. He is already on bail and shall be discharged from his bail bonds. .