SAIF-UR-REHMAN Versus State
This criminal appeal was filed by the appellant challenging his conviction and sentence dated 8-1-1998 passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Multan, under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, a court official, demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 200 from the complainant, which led to a raid and the recovery of tainted money. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the charge of bribery beyond reasonable doubt, given that the raiding Magistrate and the investigating officer admitted they did not witness the passing of the money or hear the conversation. The Lahore High Court held that because the key prosecution witnesses did not see the transaction or hear the conversation, and the raid proceedings were recorded at a police station rather than on-site, the evidence was unreliable. Consequently, the High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant by granting him the benefit of doubt.
- Can a conviction for bribery be sustained if the raiding Magistrate and investigating officer did not witness the passing of the tainted money or overhear the conversation between the complainant and the accused?
- What is the evidentiary value of raid proceedings that are recorded at a police station rather than at the place of the raid?
- Whether the prosecution's failure to prove the actual transaction of bribe money entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt?
- Section 161, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Through this appeal, the appellant has called in question the legality of his conviction and sentence dated 8‑1‑1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Multan, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 161, P.P.C. read with sections 5(2) and 47, P.C.A. and to pay Rs.5,000 as fine in default six months' R.I.
2. Facts of the prosecution case in nutshell giving rise to this appeal are that the grandson of the complainant filed a civil suit in which the officials of the Court were teasing him illegally. They used to receive Rs.50 as bribe on each date of hearing. On 12‑5‑1994 the accused appellant demanded Rs.200 as bribe from the complainant and threatened that in case he did not pay the said amount, he would be marked absent whereupon the complainant reported the matter to ACE, Multan. Consequently a raid was conducted by the raiding party supervised by Ghulam Farid, M.I.C. After sometime the complainant made the signal whereupon the raiding party entered the Court room and arrested the accused appellant. The raiding party took into possession the tainted money. The accused was arrested and case was registered against him. Abdul Ghafoor C.O. investigated the case, recorded the statements of P. Ws. and also recorded the version of the accused appellant. After due investigation he was challaned.
3. At the trial a formal charge under section 161,P.P.C. read with sections 5(2) and 47 of P.C.A. was framed against the accused appellant to which he pleaded not guilty arid claimed to be tried.
4. In his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. the accused appellant denied the commission of crime charged and professed his false implication.
5. In order to bring home the charge against the accused appellant as many as three witnesses were produced by the prosecution. Consequently, upon believing the prosecution version, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above and passed the impugned judgment, hence this appeal.
6. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court is against law and facts; that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the charge against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt; that there are material contradictions and discrepancies between the deposition of the P.Ws. It is lastly contended that the impugned conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant is liable to be set aside.
7. On the contrary the learned State Counsel opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant contending that the impugned conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court does not call for interference by this Court; that the prosecution by way of producing evidence fully succeeded in proving the charge against the accused appellant, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. Arguments heard. Record perused.
9. Ch. Abdul Ghafoor Inspector/C.O., A.C.E., Multan appeared as P.W.1. When cross‑examined he admitted that he had not seen the complainant while passing on the money to the accused appellant. He further admitted that he had also not heard the conversation between them.
10. Ghulam Farid, Senior Special Magistrate, Railway, Multan while appearing as P. W.2 categorically admitted during the cross‑examination to this effect that he could not see the complainant actually handing over the bribe money to the accused appellant from the place where he was present. He further admitted that he also could not overhear the conversation between them in this regard.
11. Barkat Ali, complainant while appearing as P.W.3 deposed in examination in‑chief that the raiding Magistrate recorded the proceedings at Police Station Saddar Mian Channu.
12. From the appraisal of the testimony of aforesaid P.Ws. Produce by the prosecution, in my view, has miserably failed to bring home the charge against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt, therefore, the learned trial Court was not justified while believing upon such‑like evidence and passed the impugned conviction and sentence of the Mae appellant, especially when the P.Ws.1 and 2, as observed above, had categorically admitted that they had not' seen the passing of tainted money and had also not heard the conversation in this regard whereas the proceedings regarding the raid allegedly conducted against the appellant were not recorded by the raiding Magistrate but instead of the same were recorded in the police station, therefore, in my view the testimony of these P.Ws. is of no consequence to the prosecution case and cannot be safely relied upon. In this respect also invoke the aid from Muhammad Zafar v. The State PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 263.
13. Consequently, the appeal is accepted and the impugned conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted to the charge framed against him by giving him benefit of doubt.
H.B.T./S‑244/L Appeal accepted.