MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus STATE

This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore whereby he on 9-8-1978 convicted Muhammad Iqbal and Ghulam Rasool appellants under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and under section 165-A and sentenced them to nine months R.I. each and a fine of Rs.500 each in default thereof to further R.I. for three months.

2. Muhammad Iqbal appellant was working as Sanitary Inspector, Samundari. The charge against the appellants was that they accepted Rs.50 from Muhammad Latif P.W.1 as illegal gratification. They denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses. Muhammad Latif P.W.1 appeared to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by Muhammad Iqbal appellant from him and further passing on of the same to Ghulam Rasool co-appellant. Masood Aslam Magistrate P.W.3, Syed Arshad Ali Shah P.W.5 Inspector Anti-Corruption were produced to prove the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the appellants. They supported the prosecution case. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Muhammad Iqbal appellant denied the incriminating circumstances and raised plea of false implication on account of enmity. Ghulam Rasool appellant also denied the incriminating circumstances. While admitting the recovery of tainted currency notes, he explained that the same were given to him by the complainant towards loan. In defence, no witness was produced.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecu tion has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; that no recovery was effected from Muhammad Iqbal appellant and that there is reasonable possibility that Ghulam Rasool appellant might have received the tainted currency notes towards loan. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that as for Muhammad Iqbal appellant, the Magistrate and the Inspector had neither heard conversation between him and the complainant nor did they see the passing on of the tainted money to him and that the money was physically recovered from the co-appellant. In these circumstances I am of the view that the prosecution has failed. to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against him. Giving him the benefit of doubt, he is acquitted of the charge.

7. So far as Ghulam Rasool appellant is concerned, admittedly the tainted currency notes were recovered from him. Just after the occurrence when the facts were fresh in his mind, he disclosed that Muhammad Iqbal on seeing the raiding party coming towards him had passed on the tainted currency notes to him asking him to conceal the same and that -t the time of trial he made statement quite contrary to the plea taken by him at the earliest stage. The version of the appellant at the stage of trial thus appears to be an after thought. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that he has rightly been convicted by the trial Court.

8. This brings me to the question of sentence. The learned counsel for the appellant has requested for leniency. In the circumstances of the case that the occurrence took place in the year 1972 and as such the appellant has suffered agony of protracted trial, l am of the view that it may not be proper to send him back to Jail. I. therefore, propose to alter the nature of sentence. The sentence of nine months R.I. is altered to a fine of Rs.2,000 in default thereof he shall undergo R.1. for six months. The fine of Rs.500 already awarded by the trial Court is maintained. Resultantly, the appellant shall deposit Rs.2,500 (Two thousand and five hundred) within two months, with the trial court failing which the trial Court shall issue warrant for his arrest and detention.

S. A.

Appeal partly accepted.