' Muhammad Sattar, Revenue Patwari of Halqa Kot Sondha, District Sheikhupura, was tried under section 161, P. P. C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and was sentenced to two years' R. I. By the Special Judge, Lahore, on 30th of April 1973.
2. P. W. I Muhammad Yunas, as an attorney sold 12/1-2 acres of land to Ghulam Sarwar (P. W. 4) for a sum of Rs. 7,000. Mutation was entered but was not sanctioned. Patwari was contacted and he said that the Tehsildar and Girdawar wanted money for the sanctimony of the mutation. Ultimately, it was settled that Rs. 700 would be paid to the appellant as a reward for getting the mutation properly sanctioned. Ghulam Sarwar (p. W. 4) was annoyed by the attitude of the appellant. He asked his cousin Sulaiman P. W. To report the matter to the Anti-Corruption. Sulaiman p. W.
Contacted Malik Faiz Ahmad (P. W. 6) of the Anti-Corruption Department, situated at Chauburji, Lahore. His statement was recorded which is Exh. P. W. 3/A and he was produced before the Magistrate who recorded his statement Exh. P. W. 2/B. A raid party was formed that consisted of the complainant (P. W. 3), Sulaiman, Mr. Sarfrazul Haq Mir, Magistrate (P. W. 2), Malik Faiz Ahmad (P. W.
6) and one Head Constable and three constables. The Head Constable and the constables were not produced.
3. On the day of occurrence, viz. 18th of June 1970, the party had gone to Kot Sondha and from there they proceeded towards Chuharkana. At the bus-stand of Chuharkana at about 10-45 a.m. The appellant appeared. He entered into a conversation regarding the payment of money with the complainant, Sulaiman. Sulaiman gave Rs. 700 to the appellant. These were seven currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination each, the serial numbers of which had already noted down. The money was passed in the presence of Sarfrazul Haq (P. W. 2), Malik Faiz Ahmad (P. W. 6) and Ghulam Sarwar (P. W. 4).
4. After passing of the money the Magistrate appeared before the appellant. He disclosed his identity, took into his possession seven currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100 each, asked the appellant to make a statement, but he refused to do so on the ground that he would make the statement after consulting his lawyer.
5. In his examination under section 342, Cr. P. C. The appellant took the following position :- "P. W. Suleman Khan purchased a she-buffalo for Rs. 1,200 from Ghulam Rasul Gujjar of village Machhikey and that he only paid a sum of Rs. 300 to Ghulam Rasul Gujjaar aforementioned when I stood surety for the payment of the remaining amount. P. W. Suleman Khan delayed the payment of the balance to Ghulam Rasul Gujjar and as I was a surety In this connection I was put or difficulty. I then asked P. W. Suleman Khan to pay the balance of Rs. 900 when he was present at the shop of Muhammad Sharif and at that time Habib Ahmad Numberdar of Manga and Niaz Ahmad Numberdar of Pandore were also present. P. W. Suleman Khan felt insulted and he then got me raided falsely. I received Rs. 700 from P. W. Suleman Khan on the day of raid in that connection when the balance of Rs. 200 he promised to pay later on."
' Three defence witnesses, namely, Muhammad Azam, Muhammad Sharif and Ghulam Rasul were produced by the appellant to support the defence version.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised before me the following contentions :- 'That the Magistrate was authorised only to supervise and not to conduct the raid, that at the bus- stand there were large number of persons and the Magistrate who could procure independent witnesses chose not to produce them, and since there are no independent witnesses in this case, the case must fail; that the police jeep was standing nearby, so the appellant could not have been so foolish as to accept the bribe in the presence of the jeep; that at various times various sums have been quoted; that the distances between the prosecution witnesses and the appellant were so short that the appellant could not have accepted a bribe when he knew that the Magistrate and the Anti-Corruption Inspector were 5/6 yards away from him; that the prosecution evidence is absolutely unbelievable; that the defence version has not been defeated in cross-examination and in fact there is no prosecution evidence and the only evidence is of the defence. The learned counsel relied on Emperor v. Anwar All AIR 1948 Lah, 27 and Emperor v. Khurshid Husain AIR 1947 Lah.
410."
7. I am afraid, none of the above-cited rulings advance the case of the appellant. Anwar Ali's case is regarding a decoy witness who had been employed by the police to entrap the accused. It cannot be said that the Magistrate or even for that matter, Suleman and Ghulam Rasul P. Ws. Were employed by police. The case is vice versa. Khurshid Hussain's case is that if the defence evidence has gone unbroken, the accused has to be acquitted. The latter case is also of no help to the appellant in this case. In fact, he has accepted the receiving of money, but has only given an explanation which is to be read in juxtaposition with the prosecution version.
8. None of the above contentions are enough to cast a doubt on the prosecution version. Obviously, the Inspector and the Magistrate were not in uniform. They were dressed like ordinary persons and the appellant may not have suspected them especially when there were large number of persons at the bus stand. Non-production of witnesses of the locality is not fatal to the prosecution case. In fact, in raid cases it is seldom done. Just because the prosecution witnesses were interested in the success of the raid, does not mean that they were ipso facto interested in involving innocent, person in the commission of the crime. The evidence against the appellant is of formidable nature.
He did not make a statement before the Magistrate when the money was recovered from him and chose to make a statement only towards the end of the case. He has not denied the receiving of the money but has given an explanation regarding it which I am not going to accept. Obviously, a mutation was entered that had not been sanctioned and the anxiety of the buyer is understandable. The background under which the money was taken is as narrated by the prosecution. 1 hold that the defence version is just an afterthought. I find no conviction in it.
9. For the reasons given above, there is no merit in this appeal which is, hereby, dismissed. The appellant is on bail. He shall surrender to his bail bonds.