GHULAM ALI vs The STATE
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by the petitioner, a clerk convicted under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for demanding and accepting an illegal gratification of Rs. 5 for issuing a solvency certificate. A trap was arranged by the Anti-Corruption Establishment, and the marked currency note was recovered from the petitioner's hand by a Magistrate. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to six months of rigorous imprisonment. The High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone (four days) alongside a fine of Rs. 300. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the courts below failed to properly consider a plausible defense regarding the origin of the recovered marked currency notes. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's belated defense story was rightly disbelieved by the lower courts, especially since the explanation for the possession of the marked note was untenable and not raised at the immediate moment of recovery.
- Whether a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 can be sustained when marked currency notes are recovered from the accused during a trap?
- Does a belated defense explanation regarding the receipt of marked currency notes warrant interference with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts?
- Whether the failure of an accused to immediately explain the possession of marked currency notes to the recovering Magistrate affects the credibility of the defense?
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-The petitioner, who was at the relevant time a clerk in the office of the Mukhtiarkar, was convicted under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for demanding and accepting an illegal gratification of Rs. 5 for the issuance of a solvency certificate to the complainant, Abdur Rahman. On Abdur Rahman's complaint to the Sub-Inspector, Anti- Corruption Establishment, Jacobabad a trap was arranged and one marked currency note of Rs. 5 and two currency notes of rupee one each were made over to the complainant to be paid to the petitioner.
2. The marked currency notes were, after the payment of the illegal gratification, actually recovered by the Magistrate from the right hand of the petitioner along with other currency notes. The petitioner, on the query of the Magistrate, stated that he would give his statement afterwards, as he was not then feeling well. At the trial the petitioner denied the charge and stated that the marked currency notes pertained to a fine imposed on one, Ghous Bakhsh, and were paid to him by the said Ghous Bakhsh. This Ghous Bakhsh was also examined as a defence witness.
3. The Courts below had disbelieved the defence story and had accepted the prosecution case. The High Court has, while upholding his conviction, reduced his sentence of imprisonment, to the period of four days already suffered but imposed upon him a fine of Rs. 300, as the amount of bribe accepted was only a small amount. He was sentenced by the trial Court to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.
4. He now seeks special leave to appeal and it is contended on his behalf that the Courts blow had not considered the defence, particularly, since the defence story was not an improbable one.
5. Learned counsel appearing in support of the petition tried to explain, when asked as to how Ghous Bakhsh could manage to get hold of the marked currency note of rupees five, that the complainant presented this marked currency note to Ghous Bakhsh and asked him to give him one rupee notes in exchange and that was how Ghous Bakhsh gave this marked currency note of Rs. 5 to the petitioner in payment of the fine. This is an extremely ingenious explanation which can hardly be accepted. If indeed there was any truth in the defence that the marked currency note was made over to the petitioner in payment of a fine by another person, then the petitioner could have said so to the Magistrate and called Ghous Bakhsh immediately to support his story. The fact that this was not done shows that this defence has been thought of subsequently.
6. We think that the petitioner has been rightly convicted and treated with leniency by the High Court.
7. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.