ABDUS SATTAR Versus THE STATE

This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Peshawar, dated ist May 1968, whereby Muhammad Sadiq appellant was convicted under section 161, P. P. C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 200 or in default in payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.

2. The appellant was posted as Patwari Halqa, Chhent, Tehsil Kahuta in the month of July 1967. Muhammad Zakir complainant wanted copies of fard and akas shajra of his land. He contacted the appellant, who demanded Rs.40 as illegal gratification. The complainant informed the Circle Officer, Anti‑Corruption Establishment, Rawalpindi, on 24th July 1967. A raiding party was constituted. Mr. Anis Sadiq, Magistrate, was deputed to supervise the raid. Statement of Muhammad Zakir complainant was recorded by the Magistrate. Muhammad Zakir produced three currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 10 each and two of the denomination of Rs. 5 each, before the Magistrate and the Magistrate returned the same to the complain ant after noting the serial numbers. The complainant was sent for passing on the tainted currency notes. The members of the raiding party stood at some distance. On receiving the signal, they reached the spot. The appellant was found sitting on a cot. The Magistrate introduced himself to the appellant. On personal search, the Magistrate recovered Rs. 40 from the pocket of the vest of the appellant. Magistrate compared the numbers of those notes and found that the numbers tallied, which he had already noted down. The Magistrate recorded the statement of Muhammad Zakir com plainant and the appellant. He handed over the documents to the Inspector, Anti‑Corruption Establishment, for further action.

3. Sardar Ali. Inspector, and Mr. Anis Sadiq. Magistrate, were examined as P. W. I and P. W. 2 respectively. Both of them supported the prosecution case. The Inspector and the Magistrate stated that on search, currency notes were recovered from the pocket of the vest of the appellant. Muhammad Zakir complainant was examined as P. W.

5. He deposed before the Special Judge that the Magistrate recovered the notes from the table. He further stated that he placed the same on the table and the Magistrate picked up the notes from there. The witness was allowed to be cross‑examined by the prosecutor. He denied to have made statement Exh. P. W. 5/A before the Magistrate. He denied to have stated before the Magistrate that the amount was recovered in his presence from the pocket of the vest of the appellant. He explained that his signatures had been obtained on a plain paper by the Magistrate. Daring cross‑examination, he admitted to have quarrelled with the appellant three days before the occurrence. He further admitted to have received a loan from the appellant when his relations were normal. In his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C., the appellant stated that the money was recovered from the table and it was not recovered from his person. He further stated that he neither demanded illegal gratification nor it was paid to him. The appellant was examined by the Magistrate soon after the recovery. He bad taken plea in that statement that he had received Rs. 40 which had been given to Muhammad Zakir as a loan. The Magistrate and the Inspector clearly admitted that they were standing at a distance of 20 to 22 paces from the chubara where the raid was conducted and they did not know as to what transpired between the appellant and Muhammad Zakir complainant. Both these witnesses neither saw the passing of the tainted currency notes to the appellant nor did they hear any talk between the two. Muhammad Zakir complainant did not corroborate the statement of Sardar Ali and Anis Sadiq P. Ws. He contradicted the by stating that the tainted currency notes were recovered from the table. Since the Magistrate and tae Inspector did not see the passing of the tainted currency notes nor did they hear any talk between the complainant and the appellant, and the complainant also contradicted the statements of the Magistrate and Sardar Ali Inspector, I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond doubt I accept this appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned Special Judge. The appellant is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail and is discharged of this bail bond.

Appeal accepted.