NIAZ AHMAD Versus STATE

This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption whereby he on 17th July, 1976 convicted Niaz Ahmad appellant under section 161, P. P. C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentence him to imprisonment till rising of the Court and a fine Its. 1,000 in default thereof to further R. I. for 9 months.

2. The appellant was a Patwari. The charge against him is that he demanded Rs. 200 and then accepted Rs. 50 from Ali Khan P. W. 3 as bribe for showing favour to him in a mutation matter. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution produced Ali Khan P. W. 3 Said Ahmad Chaukidar P. W. 4, to prove the acceptance of Rs. 50 by the appellant as bribe. Irshad Ahmad, Tehsildar/Magistrate 11 Class and Adalat Hussain Shah, Sub-Circle Officer, P. W. 5 were produced to prove the recovery of tainted money from the appellant. These witnesses have supported the prosecution case.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr. P. C., the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances and raised the plea of false implication. He did not lead any evidence in defence.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of the tainted money from the appellant and as such, he is entitled to acquittal. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the trial Court.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant inasmuch as, Irshad Ahmad Magistrate has clearly stated that "the accused was sitting on a mat and the tainted money in the shape of G. C. Notes was lying on the that when he stood up. I picked up the tainted currency notes from the mat". As far Said Ahmad Chaukidar, he being under the influence of the police, it would not be safe to accept his testimony. Since the passing on of the money to the appellant was not seen by the Magistrate and Sub-Circle Officer, therefore, in the circumstances of the case, I am not prepared to place implicit reliance on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant.

7. For what has been stated above, giving the appellant benefit of doubt, he is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged.

M. Y. H. Appeal accepted.