Sh. RASHID SHARIF vs STATE
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment dated 08.11.2008 passed by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Gujranwala, whereby the appellant, a Ziladar, was convicted under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2)/47 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year along with a fine. The core legal question before the court was whether the prosecution had successfully established the charge of illegal gratification and the recovery of tainted money beyond a reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case as the tainted money was not recovered from the immediate possession of the appellant but from a third party, and material contradictions existed in the evidence regarding the recovery and the inability of police officials to overhear the alleged transaction from a distance. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted him of the charges.
- Whether a conviction for illegal gratification can be sustained when tainted money is recovered from a third party rather than the accused's immediate possession?
- Does the uncorroborated testimony of a bribe giver require a double-check before being relied upon for a criminal conviction?
- Whether contradictions between oral evidence and recovery memos are sufficient to extend the benefit of the doubt to an accused in a corruption case?
- Section 161, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5, Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
The appellant Sh. Rashid Sharif was tried in case FIR No, 15/02, dated 21.02.2002 for offences under Section 161, PPC and Section 5(2)/47, PCA registered at Police Station ACE, Mandi Baha-ud-Din, by Mr. Muhammad Mahmood Chaudhry, learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Gujranwala. He was convicted under the afore-mentioned offences and was directed to undergo RI for one year plus fine of Rs, 10,000/-. In default, he was directed to suffer SI for three months vide judgment dated 08.11.2008.
2. The appellant was Ziladar at the relevant time. A raid was conducted upon him on receipt of allegation that he had received Rs, 2000/- as illegal gratification for implementing warabandi and that he was still demanding Rs, 2000/- more. It was also alleged against him that the appellant was siding with the opponent of the complainant Sultan Ahmad and was trying to allow time to them to get injunction against the warabandi. As a result of investigation carried out by Razzaq Ahmad-PW6, the involvement of the appellant was established and he was put up for trial.
3. The defence plea of the appellant in his statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C. was that he was falsely involved in this case and that he had never received any illegal gratification. He produced documents Ex.DA to DL.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned DPG and have perused the record.
The main plank of the prosecution case was that the tainted money of Rs, 2000/- was recovered from the possession of the appellant vide memo Ex.PB. A perusal of the evidence, however, showed that the said amount was never recovered from the immediate possession of the appellant.
Instead, it was recovered from Muhammad Tahir (PW4) an owner of the medical store. PW7, Circle Officer was admittedly standing, at a distance of 400 yards alongwith other officials wherefrom talk taking place at the relevant time between the bribe giver and the alleged bribe receiver could not be possibly heard. The search was made of Tahir PW4. There was no evidence to show if the amount of Rs, 2000/- being passed was a bribe or illegal gratification at the relevant time. The evidence, which came on record contradicted the contents of recovery memo Ex.PF dated 02.04.2002 shaking uptil the breaking point, the rickety angles set up by the prosecution on the memo Ex.PB. The singular statement of the complainant will have to be read with a pinch of salt because the evidence of a bribe giver will have to undergo a double-check. In these circumstances I am not satisfied that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It would, therefore, be better to err in favour of the appellant. I, therefore, allow the appeal and extending benefit of doubt in favour of the appellant, acquit him of the charge with which he was charged. Consequently, the conviction and sentences recorded against him shall stand set aside.