SHAHABUDDIN, J---This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the high court of West Pakistan at Lahore by which the conviction under section 5(2) of the prevention of corruption Act, 1947 and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years fine and a fine of Rs 2,000 imposed on the appellants Rashid Ahmed were maintained and his appeal was dismissed.
The case for the prosecution was to the following effect. Inayat Ullah, the: complainant (P. W.. I), who was managing a workshop in Lahore for about two years, having taken it .On a monthly rental of Rs. 200 from Ahmad Din, a refugee, to whom, it had been allotted, applied in June 1953 for its allotment to himself and his partner. The appellant who was an Assistant Rehabilitation Officer promised the complainant that be would see that the workshop was allotted to him. Thereafter under threat to set up the workshop he obtained from the complainant Rs. 500 in August 1953, Rs.
200 in November the same year and Rs. 300 in January 1954, but in May 1954, when he demanded Rs. 500 on a similar threat the complainant contacted the Anti --Corruption Authorities, having promised on pay the appellant Rs. 200 on 8th May 1954, in the workshop at 11 a.m. And the balance a week later. Or tile morning of 8th May, 1954, P. NX 13, an Inspector of Police and P. W. 14, who, was then a Magistrate, stationed themselves in a room in the workshop; and the appellant came in between 10 and. 11 a.m. And asked the complainant for the money. Thereupon .The, latter, paid the appellant in currency. Notes, numbers of which had already been noted down by the Magistrate, After the payment the complainant, gave the appoint signal at which P. Ws. 13 and 14 came out and while the appellant was going towards his car P. W. 14 disclosed his identity and demanded the production of the money, the appellant had just then been paid, whereupon the appellant handed over the very currency notes, the numbers of which the witness, had noted down. At that time the appellant stated that it was his duty to collect rent and that he had come to the complainant's factory to realize rent.
The statement of the appellant at the trial was to the effect that he had a bill showing that Rs. 200 was due from this workshop, that he made the collection on the strength of that bill and that if that bill was not correct the office which issued it was responsible. But no bill was produced before P. W.
14 on 8th May 1954. A bill (Exh. P. F.) was however produced by the appellant during the investigation before P. W. 13 only on 25th May 1954. It bears the signature of the appellant under date 5th May 1954 and shows that a sum of Rs. 85 for machinery and Rs. 115 for the building was due in respect of the workshop, but, P. W. 7, a Clerk in the Rehabilitation Department disclosed that Exh. P. F. Was not correctly drawn up, but that he wrote it on 9th May 1954 at the instance of the appellant who came to the witness, took him to the office though it was a Sunday and getting a few forms on which bills are written, threatened the witness into writing four or five bills relating to factories including the complainant's workshop. The witness pointed out to the appellant that he could not serve a bill on the workshop in question and yet the appellant insisted on the witness writing the bill. He asked P. W., 7 to initial the bills but not to date them. P. W. 7 further deposed that he had collected the rent due from the complainant for January to March 1954 and that only the rent for April and May was due which came to Rs. 83 in all, but Exh. P. F. Purports to be a bill for the months of January to May. P. W. 8 a Clerk of the Account Section of the Office of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner who produced the assessment register deposed that according to the record Rs. 200 was not due in respect of the workshop of the complainant on 8-5-54. , This witness as well as P. W. 8 another Clerk stated that bills for the rent for machinery and rent for the building are prepared separately, but Exh. P. F. Was a bill for both the machinery and building. In fact on this point D. W. 1 the Deputy Rehabilitation Commis--sioner and D. W. 9 the Rehabilitation Officer stated the same as the prosecution witnesses.
As the appellant admitted having received Rs. 200 from the complainant the only point for determination was whether that amount was paid to him as rent due, as stated by the appellant, or as illegal gratification, as deposed to by P. W.
1. On this point the direct evidence for the prosecution is of P. W.
1. There is next P. W. 7's evidence which, if true, clearly demolishes the case of the appellant that he collected Rs. 200 on 8th May 1954 towards rent on the strength of Exh. P. F. And also establishes that the appellant forged a bill after his arrest. The Courts below believed these two and the other witnesses examined for the prosecution, and the learned Judge of the High Court while dealing with the attack on P. W. 7's evidence that if the appellant had threatened the witness into preparing Exh. P. F. The later would have reported to his superiors observed that it might be that P. W. 7 helped in the forging of the bill because the appellant's were belonged to Batala to which place the witness also belonged.
It was, contended for the appellant that this theory of the learned Judge was based on speculation, that P. Ws. 1 and 7 were in the position of accomplices and the corroboration required in respect of the evidence of an accomplice was not forthcoming in this case. But neither P. W. 1 nor P. W. 7 can be said to be an accomplice the subject of the Corruption Authorities 1954 was a part of tile trap laid against the appellant having given similar information on the previous occasions cannot be said to amount to his offering of his own accord a bribe to the appellant If the witness is to be believed the appellant threatened to seal up the workshop and that was why he made the earlier payments. However, whether the earlier payments were made or not need not be determined in this case. The fact remains that Rs. 200 was paid on 8th May 1954 and in respect of it information was given to the police and in this connection P. W. 1 could not be regarded as an accomplice. As for P. W. 7 he did not say that he facilitated the commission of the offence of which the appellant was convicted. All that the witness admitted was that on 9th May 1954 he prepared a bill showing an amount not due. He added that by that time he had no knowledge of the incident of the previous day or the arrest and the releasing on bail of the appellant. This does not make him an accomplice. However there are circumstances appearing from the evidence which fully support the version of P. W. 7 that the bill Exh. P. F. Was fabricated after 8th May 1954 and that of P. W. 1 that what he paid the appellant was not rent but a bribe.
According to D. W. 9, the Rehabilitation Officer, Gowalmandi where the workshop is situate was not in the appellant's jurisdiction on 8th May 1954. We are not impressed by the argument that D. W. 9 was inimically disposed towards the appellant. The main ground for this theory was that he had reported to D. W. 1 the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner that the appellant was not regular in attending office. However, the statement of this witness that Gowalmandi was not in appellant's jurisdiction on 8th May 1954 was based on record. He said that as in Exh. D. W. 1/B Gowalmandi and other areas were wrongly shown as in the jurisdiction of the appellant he, the witness, issued on 14th April 1954 D. W. 9/C under which Gowalmandi passed into the jurisdiction of another Assistant Rehabilitation Officer. We have not been shown any record contradicting D. W. 9 on this point. The appellant's visit to the complainant's workshop on 8th May 1954 could not therefore have been for collecting rent, nor would a bill for the rent, due from the complainant for the workshop in question have been sent to the appellant by the office after 14th April 1954. Apart from this, the very fact that Exh. P. F. Refers both to rent for the machinery and the building proves that the office did not prepare that bill. As indicated above, it was in the evidence for the defence that rents for machinery and building were billed for separately. This is clear from the evidence of D. W. 1 on whom strong reliance was placed by the learned Advocate for the appellant. This witness stated that the workshop in question was not jointly assessed for the machinery and building and that wherever the assessm ent of rent under these two heads was not joint, separate bills had, to be prepared. Then again, it was in the evidence of Ahmad Din (D. W. 2), the J", to whom this workshop was allotted that the rent up to the end of the year 1953 had been paid and P. W. 1 the complainant produced the receipts for the rent he paid for January, February and March 1954. As stated already, the Accounts Clerk (P. W. 9) deposed that the record. Showed that Rs. 200 was not due on 8th May 1954 from the complainant. Further the calculation of rent for building in Exh. P. F. Was incorrect.
According to P. Ws. 1 and 7 the monthly rent for .The building was Rs. 24-12-0 and this is supported by Exh. P. 16, the receipt issued by P. W. 7 to P. W. 1 for the rent :for the building realised for the months of January to March 1954. Rent for five months calculated at this rate comes to Rs. 123-12-0 and not Rs. 115 as noted in Exh. P. F. It was contended in this connection: that the . Rent for the building was only Rs. 23 and odd as stated by D. W, 2 Ahmad Din, but even at that rate Rs. 115, is not the correct amount for five times Rs. 23 and odd must exceed Rs.
115. There is however no reason to doubt the testimony of P. Ws. 1 and 7 that Rs. 24-12-0 was the rent for the building particularly when Exh. P. 16 supports it.
There is then the important circumstance that Exh. P. F. Was not produced before the Magistrate on 8th May 1954. According to the statement of the appellant at the trial he was about to issue a receipt when he was arrested ; but no receipt book was produced before the Magistrate. The learned Advocate argued that the appellant must have been stunned when he was arrested, but we find it difficult to accept this explanation. When he could state to the Magistrate that he had come to the workshop, to realize rent it is unthinkable that he would have omitted 'to produce the bill and the receipt book before the Magistrate if he had those documents with him; P. W. 14 also stated that the appellant removed the papers which were on the front seat of the car to make room for the witness whom .He drove to his office. If the bill and the receipt-book were amongst those papers the appellant would have drawn the attention of P. W. 14 to them at least at that stage. As regards the receipt --book, D. W. 7 stated that the stock register showed that a receipt-- book had been issued to the appellant but he added that he himself had never issued a receipt- book to the appellant and that the forms of the receipt-book which was issued to the appellant were discontinued. D. W. 5 on the other hand said that he was asked by the appellant to meet him at the workshop in question that when he went to get the receipt-book he was told that he was transferred to another branch and that he could not therefore meet the accused with the receipt- book. The evidence of P. W. 8 was that on the 8th May the appellant had directed D. W. 5 to accompany him with the receipt-book. If D. W. 5 was to get the receipt-book it would follow that he appellant himself did not have it. However the fact remains that he did not mention, any receipt- book to the Magistrate. In this connection it is significant that D. W. 1 deposed that it was very seldom that Assistant Rehabilitation. Officers kept receipt-books, that Rehabilitation Inspector usually issued the receipts and. The Assistant Rehabilitation Officer was to be present `to enforce realization and not for the purpose of issuing receipts'. It is also in the evidence of this witness that rent could not be realised without the issue of the receipt. . There was th6s 'ample evidence to sustain the conviction. The appeal is therefore dismissed: