MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus THE STATE

This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Senior Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Punjab, Lahore whereby he on 2.9‑5‑1983 convicted Muhammad Ashraf appellant under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default thereof to R.I. for six months.

2. The appellant was a storekeeper. The charge against him was that he accepted Rs. 50 as illegal gratification from Muhammad Akhtar P.W.4. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case prosecution examined 4 witnesses. Muhammad Akthar P.W.4 was produced to prove demand as well as acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant from him. Zulfiqar Ali, Inspector, P.W.2 and Riazul Hassan, Magistrate P.W.3 were produced to prove the recovery of tainted currency notes from him. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the incriminating circumstances. While admitting the recovery of tainted currency notes from him, he explained that he received Rs. 40 from Haji Shaukat, dispenser which were returned to him through the complainant on the day of raid. He did not lead any evidence in defence.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to prove that the tainted currency notes were received by the appellant as illegal gratification. The learned counsel for the State, however, 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 the recovery of tainted currency notes is not only a proved but also an admitted fact and as such, the real question for determination is whether the same were received as illegal gratification or not. I find that the Magistrate and the Inspector had not heard any conversation between the appellant and the complainant and as such, so far as the nature of transaction is concerned, statement of Akhtar Ali, a decoy witness alone remains in field upon which I do not desire to place implicit reliance because, in the circumstances of the case, the reasonable possibility that the plea taken by the appellant might be true cannot be excluded from consideration.

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

M.Y.H. Appeal accepted.