RASHEEDA BEGUM Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL
This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Lahore whereby he on 2‑8‑1974 convicted Yunus Masih appellant under section 161, P.P.C. and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to nine months' R. I.
2. The appellant was working as Assistant Lineman, Sub‑Division No. 2, Electricity WAPDA, Sialkot. The charge against him was that he demanded Rs. 60 but accepted Rs. 50 as illegal gratification from Muhammad Boota P.W. for supplying electricity connection to his tube‑ well. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case prosecution examined 5 witnesses. Muhammad Boota P. W. I appeared to prove demand as well as acceptance of illegal gratification from him by the appellant. Muhammad Aslam S.I., P.W.2 and Ghulam Ahmad Khan, Magistrate, P.W.5 were produced to prove acceptance by and recovery of tainted currency notes from the appellant. They supported the prosecution case. The rest of the evidence is more or less of formal nature.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denie0 all incriminating circumstances. He raised the plea of false implication on account of enmity. In defence he produced 3 witnesses, N1ian Lal Din D.W. 1, Muhammad Dir. D.W 2 and Dr. Karamat Ullah D.W.3. They gave evidence to the effect that the complainant owed Rs. 200/300 to the brother of the appellant and when the money was demanded from the complainant, there ensued an altercation between the appellant and the complainant and that the complainant had threatened the appellant with dire consequences.
5. The learned counsel submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; that the prosecution witnesses are not reliable; that the appellant was falsely involved on account of enmity; that the prosecution evidence suffers from material contradictions and discrepancies and that since the Magistrate and the Investigating Officer had not heard the conversation between the appellant and the complainant which preceded the passing on of the tainted currency notes, therefore, it cannot be said that the money was received by the appellant as illegal gratification. Conversely, 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 have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. I find that the Magistrate who is quite independent witness has stated that the tainted currency notes were received by the appellant within his view; that the tainted currency notes were recovered from the physical possession of the appellant; that immediately after the raid when his statement was recorded by the Magistrate, the appellant did not deny the receipt of tainted currency notes by and subsequent recovery thereof from him; that at the time of trial when his statement was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C., he disowned the statement made by him. His plea was that the statement Exh. P.W.5/B was recorded under inducement and coercion. There is nothing on record to show that the statement was made by him under inducement and coercion by Raiding Magistrate or someone else. The complainant has stated that the appellant had demanded and agreed to accept Rs. 50 as illegal gratification for supplying him the electricity connection. The recovery of tainted currency notes which stands proved from the statement of the Magistrate also gives rise to the statutory presumption that the money was received by him as illegal gratification. Instead of giving any explanation of the recovery of tainted currency notes from him, the appellant has altogether denied the recovery of tainted currency notes. The Magistrate and the Police Officer have successfully stood the test of cross‑examination. I do not see any inherent' infirmity in their statements. To my mind, they are confidence inspiring witnesses. The defence evidence is not strong enough to rebut the prosecution case and its evidence. For all these reasons, I am convinced that the trial Court has rightly convicted A the appellant under section 161, P.P.C read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
7. This brings me to the question of sentence. The learned counsel has requested for leniency. In the circumstances that the occurrence took place in the year 1967; that the appellant was convicted in the year, 1974; that he has suffered agony of protracted trial and that the P bribe money is only Rs.50, I do not desire to send him back to jail. The sentence of his imprisonment is, therefore, altered to that of a fine of Rs. 7,000 (Rupees Seven thousand), in default thereof nine months' R.I. He shall deposit the fine with the trial Court within two months failing which the trial Court shall issue warrants for his arrest and detention.
M. A. K. Order accordingly.