' QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.---These two inter-linked Criminal Appeals, by leave of the Court, are meant to impugn the common judgment, dated 7-7-1996 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, whereby two connected Criminal Appeals filed by two real brothers Rashid Khan and Arbab Khan against the judgment, dated 16-6-1994 of the learned Special Judge (Central) II, Karachi, were dismissed. We propose to dispose of both the appeals by this common judgment as they have arisen from one and the same judgment.
2. The brief facts necessary for the present purpose are these. On 12-2-1989 a picket was laid at Hassan Square by a raiding party, headed by Inspector Hassain All Baloch of FIA, on a tip-off that a pedlar named Muhammad Salim would come to Hassan Square in Car No,185-189 for delivering heroin to one of his customers. The said car appeared on the scene at about 4-30 p.m. And stopped at the appointed place. The driver, namely, Muhammad Salim alighted from the car carrying two plastic bags in his hand. He was nabbed by the raiding party and heroin weighing 4550 grams was recovered from the plastic bags. During the ensuing interrogation he divulged that the heroin was supplied to him for sale by Rashid Khan, Sepoy of Customs Department posted at Customs Warehouse, Karachi, who had pilfered it from the Warehouse. He also led the raiding party to the residence of Rashid Khan situated in Keamari. Rashid Khan was present in his House No,8, Block No,50, Customs Quarters, and in his presence the Quarter was searched by the raiding party and a VCR, 20 bottles of Whisky, 18 Wrist Watches and cash amounting to Rs,14,29,060 were recovered. The search was witnessed by Syed Fahimuddin and Zafar Ali, who had earlier accompanied the raiding party to Hassan Square. Rashid Khan failed to account for the recovered money which was disproportionate to his known source of income and status. He and Muhammad Salim were booked for offences under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, section 381/411, P.P.C, and Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. Challan with regard to offences under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 was submitted against them in a Court of competent jurisdiction. For the remaining offences they were tried by the learned Special Judge (Central) II, Karachi who, vide judgment, dated 16-6-1994, acquitted Muhammad Salim and also acquitted Rashid Khan of the charges under sections 281 and 411, P.P.C., but convicted him under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to two years' R.I. And confiscated the seized cash and other articles, except the VCR which was returned to the appellant's nephew, to the State. The convict filed an appeal before High Court of Sindh, Karachi, which was dismissed on 7-7-1996. The appeal filed by his brother Arbab Khan, who had urged before the trial Court that the cash recovered from the house of Rashid Khan in fact belonged to him, for the refund of the confiscated money was also dismissed.
3. Leave to appeal was granted to Rashid Khan to consider:--
(i) That the evidence of Inspector Hussain Ali Exh.9 had been disbelieved qua co-accused Saleem and has been further disbelieved qua the petitioner in respect of the offences punishable under sections 381 and 411 of P.P.C. And the same cannot be relied upon for conviction under section 5(2) of Act II of 1947;
(ii) that even if recovery of the cash in question from quarter of the petitioner is accepted, the prosecution has to establish that the petitioner had not been able to reasonably account for the same; and
(iii) that the cash in question recovered from the house of the petitioner belongs to his brother Arbab Khan, who has filed a suit for recovery of the same."
4. Leave to appeal was granted to Arbab Khan to examine the following points:-- "(i) that the money recovered from house of Rashid Khan on 12-2-1989 belongs to the petitioner and such evidence was adduced in the trial Court by Rashid Khan; and
(ii) that the petitioner has filed a civil suit in the High Court of Sindh claiming said amount, and in case of his suit being decreed, such decree would be in conflict with the order of forfeiture of the said amount, ordered by the trial Court and not interfered with by the Appellate Court."
5. Conviction of the appellant Rashid Khan essentially rests on the testimony of the complainant- cum-Investigating Officer, Inspector Hassan Ali Baloch and his own statement recorded on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Wherein he has admitted recovery of the cash from his house in most unequivocal terms.
6. The testimony of the complainant is confidence-inspiring and there is nothing in his cross- examination to suggest even remotely that he was inimically disposed towards the appellant or was swa yed by any sinister design to implicate him falsely in the case. Learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal haq not been able to advance any good reason as to why he should not be believed. We are not impressed by the contention that his testimony having been disbelieved qua Muhammad Saleem should not be believed in regard to the appellant. The contention is certainly misconceived. The F.I.R. Folds two episodes. The first episode pertains to the arrest of Muhammad Saleem and recovery of heroin from him and the second to the recovery of cash etc. From the house of Rashid Khan and his arrest. It is in evidence that in the case pertaining to the first episode Muhammad Saleem was convicted and Rashid Khan acquitted. In the case in hand, which pertains to the second episode, Rashid Khan was convicted and Muhammad Saleem acquitted.
The acquittal of Muhammad Saleem is not based on the testimony of the complainant but on the ground that he had no concern whatsoever with the cash recovered from the house of Rashid Khan. In any event the contention cannot prevail as the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' does not hold the field anymore having been replaced by a more rational methodology of evaluation of evidence called 'sifting grain from the chaff . Reference in this context may be made to the judgments of this Court reported as Tawaib Khan v. State (PLD 1970 SC 13) and Samano v Sate (1973 SCM R 162). The testimony in question can be safely believed vis-a-vis the appellant as it is amply corroborated by his aforementioned admission.
7. As regards the admission of the appellant Rashid Khan about recovery of cash from his house it will be enough to say that it has not only made the recovery undisputed but is also sufficient by itself to sustain conviction for want of a plausible explanation. Needless to mention that the material on record is not sufficient to establish that the cash belonged to the appellant's brother, therefore, it goes without saying that the appellant has singularly failed to account for the cash recovered from his house.
8. The appellant is a public servant drawing a meagre salary and has failed to offer a satisfactory explanation for recovery of a heavy amount of money from his house, therefore, he is indubitably guilty of the offence of criminal misconduct within the import of clause (e) of subsection (1) of section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 which is worded thus:-- "(e) For Central Government employees only.---If he, or any of his dependents, is in possession, for which the public servant cannot reasonably account of pecuniary resources or of property disproportionate to his known sources of income."
The prosecution case against him indeed stands proved beyond an reasonable doubt.
9. Coming to the appeal of Arbab Khan we find that it is also liable to be dismissed. It appears from the record that during trial of Rashid Khan an application under section 516-A, Cr.P.C. Was moved by the appellant Arbab Khan with the prayer that pending conclusion of the trial the cash recovered from the house of Rashid Khan, his younger brother, be returned to him as it belonged to him. The application was rejected by the learned trial Court on 12-4-1989 in the following terms:-- "Since the amount in question was recovered from accused's house, prima facie, the legal presumption would be that it belonged to him. Therefore, at this stage, the said amount cannot be returned to applicant. It is, however, mentioned here that the issue of ownership of said amount would finally be decided after the evidence in the case is recorded."
10. The above order was challenged by Arbab Khan through a revision petition which was dismissed on 17-10-1989 by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, with the following observations:-- "The trial Court is not competent to investigate into the question of ownership of the money recovered by F.I.A. From the house of Rashid Khan Sepoy of Pakistan Customs at this stage or even at the final stage. The applicant will have to take recourse to a competent Civil Court for getting his title established."
' Thereafter, he filed a civil suit, which is pending.
11. As mentioned earlier, the evidence and other material available on record is not enough for holding that the cash in question belonged to the appellant, who claims to be a property dealer and has alleged that after selling his landed property in his native town in Kohat he had come to Karachi to purchase land at Super Highway for the purpose of establishing a real estate business and was staying with his brother Rashid Khan at Customs Quarters and kept a sum of Rs,20,00,000 in his house which was taken away by Inspector Hassan Ali Baloch of F.I.A. During an illegal raid. The civil suit filed by him cannot thwart disposal of these appeals which are to be decided on their own merits.
' For the foregoing reasons both the appeals are dismissed.