MUHAMMAD TUFAIL Versus STATE
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑ This petition is directed against the order of a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dismissing with some modification in the sentence, the appeal of the petitioner, vide his order dated 8‑6‑1977.
2. The facts briefly stated are that the petitioner and his co‑accused Mehraj Din. Canal Patwari, Chak No. 44, Kotla Kahewan, District Sheikhupura, were tried under section 161, P. P. C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947?, on the allegation that Meraj Din, who was working as Patwari in the aforementioned Chak, demanded Rs. 100 as illegal gratification for getting some remission of land revenue. According to the case of the prosecution Nazir Ahmad (P. W. 1) had taken a square of land on tender in Chak No. 44 Police Station Mananwala, District Sheikhu pura. This land on account of its poor quality was not assessable to land revenue, but had been so assessed. Nazir Ahmad P. W. approached Meraj Din, the then Patwari and asked him for the correction of the Khasra Girdawari so that the land revenue already assessed was remitted. Meraj Din allegedly promised to get remission for Nazir Ahmad, provided he was prepared to pay Rs. 100 as illegal gratification to him. Meraj Din however it is alleged, asked Nazir Ahmad P. W. to pay him the amount through Muhammad Tufail, petitioner herein, who was previously posted Patwari in the office of Deputy Collector, Sheikhupura. Accordingly Nazir Ahmad P. W. contacted the petitioner and agreed to pay the illegal gratification and a day and time,. was fixed for the same. However it was agreed that a sum of Rs. 75 in all would be paid ; Rs. 50 for Meraj Din and Rs. 25 for the petitioner.
3. On a report being made to the Anti‑Corruption Agency by Nazir Ahmad, a raiding party was organised, consisting of Nazir Ahmad P. W. Syed Manochehr, Magistrate First Class Sheikhupura and Mumtaz Hussain Shirazi, S. 1. Anti‑Corruption Establishment. The Magistrate after record ing the statement of Nazir Ahmad P. W. noted down serial. numbers of the currency notes amounting to Rs. 75 and handed over the money to Nazir Ahmad P. W. The raiding party then went to the destination and Muhammad Tufail petitioner allegedly received a sum of Rs. 75 from Nazir Ahmad P. W. When he put the money in his pocket, the Magistrate appeared on the scene and recovered the tainted money from him.
4. The petitioner alongwith Meraj Din was tried for having obtained the said amount of Rs. 75 from Nazir Ahmad as motive or reward for correcting the Girdawari of his land. However, the learned Special Judge Anti Corruption while convicting the petitioner, acquitted Meraj Din as he found that the case against him was not made out beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioner however, was sentenced to undergo one year R. I. in connection with his conviction under section 161, P. P. C. read with section 5/2/47 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
5. The petitioner preferred an appeal in the Lahore High Court, which was rejected by the learned single Judge, who maintained the conviction, but reduced the sentence from one year to six months' R. I. vide his judgment dated 8‑6‑1977. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
6. Rana Abdul Rahim, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this petition, submitted that the prosecution story that Nazir Ahmad P. W. had contacted Meraj Din, since acquitted, who was Patwari of the Halqa, for getting a necessary correction in the Khasra Girdawari, but he, in turn, asked him to pay the amount of Rs. 100 as illegal gratification to him through Muhammad Tufail petitioner was on the face of it unnatural and un-believable, because there was no occasion for Meraj Din to have asked Nazir Ahmad to pay the amount to the petitioner, nor could the petitioner be of any help to Nazir Ahmad because he was never posted as Patwari of the Halqa, nor in any way connected with the remission of land revenue. Learned counsel submitted that this aspect of the case had been overlooked by the learned Judge in the High Court. He also drew our attention to some other weaknesses and improbabilities in the prosecution case. After hearing the learned counsel we consider that the case require further consideration. We would accordingly grant leave to appeal.
7. Leave granted.