1. B. Z. KAIKAUS, J. -Snahab-u9-Din appellant who was at tire relevant time officiating, as a Sup- Judie and Fist Class Magistrate At Warrah was tried alongwith his peon Rasul Bakhsh of an offence under section 161, P. P. C. Read with section 512 of the Prevention of Corruption Art and on conviction by a Special judge was semen to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 2,000. His Co-Accused Rasul Bakhsh was on conviction sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.
50. Both appealed to the High Court and the High Court while maintaining the convictions reduced the sentence of imprisonment of the appellant to two years rind that of Rasul Bakhsh to imprisonment already undergone.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case was as follows. F anal Muhammad, P. W. Was as accused in case under sections 148 and 342, P. P. C. Alongwith four of his haris in the Court of the appellant although as yet he had not appeared is Court. Rasul Bakhsh accused approached Fazal Muhammad and informed him that the complaisant in his case had, to secure his conviction, already paid a sum of Rs. 400 to the appellant, and that unless be paid a higher dam that case could be decided against hire. Fazal Muhammad requested Rasul Bakhsh to take up the matter with the appellant and to induce the appellant to accept a reasonable sum adding that the case against him was false. Rasul Bakhsh discussed the matter with toe appellant while the appellant was going from his office towards his house and Fazal Muhammad was following at a short distance. The appellant said to Rasui Bakhsi that he would discharge Fazal Muhammad and his co- accused if he was paid Rs. 1500 Fazal Muhammad having overheard this approached the appellant and requested the appellant to reduce his demand. Rasul Bakhsh intervened and asked Fazal Mohammad to bring money saying that the exact amount could be settled later on. Fazal Muhammad came away and made up his mini to report the canter to the Anti-Corruption Department. He contacted Mr. Moean-ud-Din, Circle Officer, tend a raid was arranged. The raid party consisted of Mr. Jamal-ud-Din, Subs Divisional Magistrate, Kamber, Moen-ud-Din, Circle Officer, Hyderabad, Mohammed Ibrahim, Rashid Ahmad, and a police constable. Fazal Mohammad had with hits eight notes of rupees one hundred each for payment to the appellant and two notes of rupees ten each for payment to Kasul Bakhsh. Fazal Muhammad and Ibrahim contacted Rasul Bakhsh accused telling him that they had brought some money and that he should contact the appellant so that the demand is reduced and he accepts the amount which has been brought.
3. Two notes of rupee ten each were handed over to Rasul Bakhsh as the reward for his assistance in the case. Rasul Bakhsh took Fazal Muhammad and Mohammad Ibrahim to the house of the appellant. The appellant cane our and Fazal Muhammad In the presence of Muhammad Ibrahim requested the appellant to accept Rs. 800 and not to press for any more payment. The appellant accepted Rs. 800 saying that Rs. 200 more should be paid to hint and then rent hack into his house.
4. Muhammad Ibrahim want away to inform the raid parry. The raid party came and after getting the door of the house of the appellant opened, the members of the raid party rushed into the courtyard and announced them--selves. On seeing them the appellant took tine eight notes of one hundred rupees each out of the pocket of his pant and throw their against the southern wall of his house. Three of then full on the ground after striking the wall and the remaining fell on a cot.
5. The prosecution story was supported in Court by the statements of Mr. Jamal-ud-Din, S. D. M., Moeen-ud-Din. Circle Officer, Fazal Muhammad arid Muhammad Ibrahim. The plea of the appellant was that when the raid party entered his house some one had thrown the eight hundred rupee notes into the house from outside. The appellant also produced in defence one Shaukat Ali Who said that he was playing Begga Tella with the appellant at the time when the raid party entered the courtyard and that hehad not seen the appellant taking the notes out of the pocket of hispant The notes he paid were lying on the act and the ground. The appellant had said at that time that perhaps the Qadianis had thrown them from outside. It may be observed here that according to the appellant Fazal Muhammad P.W. Was a Qadiane and was inimical to him because he had somehow gained and impression that the appellant was opposed to the Qadianes.
6. Neither of the two Courts found any reason to disbelieve the Sub---Division Magistrate, vie Circle Officer and Mohammad Ibrahim. Leave to appeal was grantee in this case because it was urged that Mr. Jamal-ud---Din, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, was inimical to the appellant as would appear from some documents placed on the record and that the High Court had not referred to these documents in its judgment.
7. On a perusal of the record we do not find any ground for holding that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was inimic2l to the appellant. All that happened was that an application for transfer having been filed before Mr. Tamal-ud-Din in respect of a case pending before the appellant Mr. Jamal-ud-Din called for the report of the appellant end the appellant took exception to the letter by which the report was called for on the ground that the signatures of Mr. 1amal-ud-Din appearing on the letter were in red ink. The appellant expressed the opinion that a signature in red ink was discourteous.
8. Mr. Jamal-ud-Din said in reply to the letter of the appellant that the remark as to red ink was uncalled for. The appellant thereupon expressed his regret though at the same time he asserted that he had taken the objection bona fide. We do not think this small incident could induct Mr. Jamal-ud-Din to fabricate false case against the appellant. Against Mr. Moeen-ud-Din, Circle Offices, and Muhammad Ibrahim, the appellant had net been able to suggest anything which would show that they bad a reason for falsely implicating the appellant.
9. We have ourselves considered the question whether the notes could Lave been thrown from outside. A plan was produced before us which showed that on the southern side of the courtyard of the house of the appellant there was a latrine end beyond the latrine there was a vacant room without a roof. The plea of the appellant was that the currency notes had been thrown from the vacant room over the latrine into the courtyard. However, the plan produced by the appellant did not show the width of the latrine so that no may be able to come to a conclusion whether the notes could be thrown at all over the latrine so as to reach the courtyard. There was no statement even at the bar as to the width of this latrine. The failure of the appellant to make a clear statement as to the width of the latrine is not a circumstance in his favour. In any case is the face of the statements of independent witnesses the defence of the appellant can have little force even if it was found that there was a possibility of the notes being thrown into She courtyard There is no force in this appeal which is dismissed.