1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 14-6-2002 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Criminal Appeal No,906 of 1998 filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore, through his judgment dated 17-7-1998, was dismissed.
2. ' We need not give the facts of the case as the same have been amply described in the impugned judgments of the trial Court as well as the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court.
3. ' The petitioner was convicted under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and was sentenced by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore, through his judgment dated 17-7-1998 to six months' R.I. With a fine of Rs,5,000 or in default to further suffer R.I. For one month. He filed Criminal Appeal No,906 of 1998 before the Lahore High Court, Lahore, assailing his conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Judge. A learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, issued suo motu notice in Criminal Revision No,540 of 2002 for enhancement of sentence of the petitioner keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
4. ' The above appeal came up for hearing on 14-6-2002 which has been dismissed through the impugned judgment and the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court also dismissed the aforesaid criminal revision with the following observations:-- "8. So far as suo motu Criminal Revision No,540 of 2002 is concerned, it may be observed that the occurrence took place in 1993, the appellant was tried twice because his case was once remanded and now this appeal is pending before this Court for the last four years, so after having face this much agony, I deem it proper to recall the notice issued for enhancement of sentence. The revision petition is also dismissed."
5. We have given our anxious considerations to the facts of the present case. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the raiding party neither heard nor seen the passing of tainted money is devoid of any force. The prosecution examined six witnesses in order to establish its case. The testimony of Ghulam Muhammad (P.W.2) as well as Zulfiqar Ali (P.W.3) fully establishes that the petitioner was paid Rs,2,600 by the complainant prior to the raid. During the course of raid tainted money amounting Rs,1,400 was recovered from the petitioner. The explanation offered by him at the time of raid as well as through Haji Allah Rakha (D.W.1) does not inspire any confidence. The witnesses have got no malice orwhatsoever against the petitioner to implicate him in this case. They were subjected to cross-examination by the defence but nothing favourable was brought on record from the defence side. The petitioner has already been dealt with leniently not only by the trial Court but also by the learned. Judge of the Lahore High Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court.
7. Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed and .