Sh. RASHID SHARIF vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant, a Ziladar, for offences under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Sections 5(2) and 47 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, following allegations of accepting illegal gratification for implementing warabandi. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of tainted money and the commission of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The Lahore High Court found significant discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence, noting that the alleged bribe money was recovered from a third party, not the appellant's immediate possession, and that the raiding party was positioned too far away to witness the transaction. Emphasizing that the testimony of a bribe-giver requires careful scrutiny and corroboration, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant by extending the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reaffirms the principle that where prosecution evidence is contradictory and fails to prove the essential elements of the crime, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused.
- Does the recovery of alleged bribe money from a third party, rather than the accused, satisfy the burden of proof in a corruption case?
- Is the uncorroborated testimony of a bribe-giver sufficient to sustain a conviction for illegal gratification?
- What is the legal consequence when prosecution evidence contradicts the recovery memo in a corruption trial?
- Section 161, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 47, Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.---The appellant Sh. Rashid Sharif was tried in case F.I.R. No,15/02, dated 21-2- 2002 for offences under section 161, P.P.C. And sections 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 S.I. For three months vide judgment dated 8-11-2008.
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 P.W.6, 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 Exh.DA to DL.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned D.P.G. 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. Exh.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 (P.W.4) an owner of the medical store. P.W.7, Circle Officer was admittedly standing at a distance of 400 yards along with 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 to Tahir P.W.4. There was no evidence to A show if the amount of Rs,2000 being passed was a bribe or illegal gratification at the relevant time. The evidence, which carne on record contradicted the contents of recovery memo. Exh.PF dated 2-4-2002 shaking uptil the breaking point, the rickety angles set up by the prosecution on the memo. Exh.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 standL set aside.