MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Versus THE STATE

This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption Sargodha and Faisalabad Divisions, Headquarters at Sargodha whereby he on 24‑10‑1984 convicted Muhammad Yousaf appellant under section 161, P.P.C. and sentenced him to for one month R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 in default of payment of fine further S.I. for one month.

2. The appellant was a Beldar. The charge against him was that he demanded and accepted Rs.100 as illegal gratification from Muhammad Hussain complainant. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case prosecution examined three witnesses. Muhammad Hussain P.W.I the complainant appeared to prove the demand as well as acceptance of illegal gratification from him by the appellant. Mian Muhammad Aslam Magistrate P.W.2 and Rai Ahmad Yar Inspector P.W.3 were produced to prove the recovery of tainted currency notes from him. They supported the prosecution case. The rest of the evidence is not very much important.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant, while admitting the recovery of tainted currency notes from him, stated that the same were given to him by the complainant for deposit of fine to be imposed on him. One witness was produced in defence.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that prosecution has failed to prove that the tainted currency notes were received by the appellant as illegal gratification. 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 myself persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. I find that the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the appellant is not only a proved but also an admitted fact. The question for determination and consideration is as to whether the same were received by the appellant as illegal gratification or not. I find that the Magistrate and the Inspector Anti-?Corruption did not hear any talk between the complainant and the appellant at the time of raid and as such so far as the nature of transaction is concerned, the statement of Muhammad Hussain P.W.1 alone mains in field. He being a decoy witness it would not be in actor ante with the safe administration of justice in criminal cases to place implicit reliance on his uncorroborated testimony. In the circum?stances of the case the possibility that explanation given by the appellant, might be true cannot be excluded.

For what has been stated above, giving him the benefit of doubt the appellant is acquitted of the charge.

M. A. K. ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted.