1. ' Appellant Muhammad Arab has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 19-8-1996 whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Act II of 1947 and sentenced to undergo R.I. For one year and to pay a fine of Rs,500 or in default to suffer further R.I. For six months.
2. ' The prosecution case is that on 25-8-1982 complainant Haji Khurram was grazing his cattle at high way near Hingoro bus stand on the National High Way when the accused abused him and started taking away cattle towards the village Sangi. The complainant as well as P.W. Muhammad Parial Jatoi beseehed the accused for the release of the cattle, who demanded illegal gratification of Rs,200 for showing favour. On appeasement by the complainant, he reduced the demand to Rs,100 out of which Rs,30 were paid to him then and there. The balance amount of Rs,70 was promised to be paid on the next day at about 12-00 noon. After the release of cattle instead of paying the agreed amount to the accused, the complainant reported the matter to Anti- Corruption Establishment, Sukkur where his F.I.R. Was recorded by Sub-Inspector Sher Muhammad.
3. ' After the registration of the F.I.R., P.W. Sher Muhammad obtained permission to investigate the crime from the Mukhtiarkar & FCM Rohri and under the supervision of P.W. Ghous Bux Bhayo, Assistant Mukhtiarkar & Third Class Magistrate, Rohri and in presence of mashir Allah Yar, he laid a trap at a bridge on water course near Hingoro bus stop. In consequence of the trap, tainted money worth Rs,70 was secured from the possession of the accused in which he had folded the currency notes. After usual investigation and obtaining sanction for prosecution from Anti-Corruption Committee No,II Sukkur, the accused was sent up for trial.
4. ' In support of its case, prosecution examined Muhammad Parial P.W.1 Haji Khurram P.W.2, Mashir Allah Yar P.W.3, Ghous Bakhsh Bhayo P.W.4 and SIP Sher Muhammad P.W.S. ' In his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant admitted his public status but denied all the allegations against him. With regard to the witnesses, he alleged that they were related to the complainant. He explained his position as under: ' "Badal, Jiand and Jiwno were posted as Beldars under me. Due to their absence from duty I got their services terminated. P.W. Abdul Ghani Jatoi of Anti-Corruption police had pressed me not to take action against these belders but I was helpless. He issued threats of dire consequences to me.
5. All the three beldars were related to Khurram Jatoi who was annoyed with me. I had sold my wrist watch for Rs,170 to Khurram. He had paid Rs,100 to me as initial payment about 2-3 months before this incident. He kept me on false hopes for the remaining amount. I had exchanged hot words with him over this payment therefore, he was annoyed. In collusion with PC Abdul Ghani who is his relative, he falsely implicated me in this case."
6. ' In his defence the appellant examined as many four witnesses, namely, Arbab Ali Abbasi, A.S.I.P.
7. Panoakil, Shah Nawaz Shaikh a peon, Union council Nauraja, Muhammad Usman Cleaner Irrigation Department and Hafiz Mukhtiar Ahmed.
8. ' On the conclusion of the trial the appellant was convicted and sentenced as above.
9. ' Mr. A.R. Farooq Pirzada learned counsel for the appellant urged the following substantial points:
(i) That for the purpose of corruption case it is necessary that the raiding party must see the transaction and also hear the conversation,
(ii) It must be proved that the nature of transaction was illegal gratification. According to him the sum of Rs,70 secured from the person of appellant was the sale consideration of watch and that
(iii) there is enmity between the complainant and the appellant which has been established on record. Therefore, it could not be conclusively held that the transaction was illegal gratification and that substantial doubt exists and the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
10. ' The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the following case-law.
(i) Abdul Hamid v. The State (1984 PCr.LJ 2774),
(ii) Zulfiqar Ali v. The State (1985 PCr.LJ 1449),
(iii) Riasat Ali v. The State (1985 PCLU 2770),
(iv) Ahmed Abdul Rahim v. The State (1985 PCr.LJ 1639) (v), Muhammad Abdullah v. The State (1986 PCr.LJ 1839),
(vi) Din Muhammad v. The State (1986 PCr.LJ 1973),
(vii) Muhammad Ashraf v. The State (1996 SCM R 181).
11. ' Learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing for the State has opposed this appeal. According to him whether the tainted money was a sale consideration, no such question was put to the complainant when he was being examined in the trial Court. The sale consideration is an after thought. Recovery of tainted money from the person of appellant is a conclusive proof that he has received the same and the presumption would be that such amount was so received by the appellant and recovered from his possession would lead credence that it was for the purpose of illegal gratification. The information of illegal gratification was urged before Anti-Corruption Authorities before the raid has taken place.
12. ' I have given anxious consideration to the pleas urged before me. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the deposition of mashir Allah Yar who was examined vide Exh.No,4.
13. According to him it was because of annoyance of the complainant and since they exchanged hot words with each other that the story of illegal gratification appears to be concocted. It is further urged that in order to take revenue for discharge of two Beldars this allegation of corruption has been made. Appellant was working as forest guard. He had neither the power nor the authority to employ Beldars or to discharge/terminate their service. Therefore, on that account to contention of Mr. A.R. Farooq Pirzada appears to be fantastic but devoid of reality.
14. ' Corruption has become the order of the day. It has many faces and each face of corruption leads to the ultimate disgrace of the nation and hampers progress as well as development. Corruption erodes the values of society. It is high time that the corruption (be it for one rupee or one million) be tackled very seriously. Once the allegation of corruption is established beyond reasonable doubt the appellant could not be given the benefit of technicalities as the technicalities cannot subvert the process of justice.
15. The defence that has been taken by the appellant is that money was recovered from him but it was not illegal gratification and his further contention is that because he had sold his watch and this was the remaining consideration of the sale of his watch. This contention which has been taken in defence was not put to the complainant. No question was put to him as to when the watch was sold and that the money so recovered was a sale consideration. Only complainant was competent to state whether the amount so recovered was sale consideration or whether he had purchased such watch from the appellant. I would, therefore, hold that such plea of appellant was after thought and does not inspire confidence.
16. ' Since I am convinced that the money was recovered from the appellant and it was indeed illegal gratification, therefore, I would not indulge into the technicalities as nothing turns of those technicalities urged by the learned counsel for the appellant and for these reasons the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the appellant are distinguishable.
17. ' Under the circumstances, I would hold that the prosecution has established the case against appellant. After hearing the parties in open Courts on 16-10-1997 this appeal was dismissed for the reasons to be recorded subsequently. These are the reasons for passing such order. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. It is ordered that he shall be arrested and remanded to judicial custody to serve out the remaining sentence.