MUHAMMAD AKHTAR vs THE STATE
This criminal petition for leave to appeal arises from the judgment of the High Court maintaining the petitioner's conviction under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while setting aside his conviction under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner, a record-keeper in the Income-tax Department, was caught red-handed accepting illegal gratification from a timber merchant to hush up an income tax matter. The core legal question was whether an employee who lacks the direct official capacity to personally grant a favour can be convicted under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for accepting illegal gratification as a motive for rendering or attempting to render service with another public servant. The Supreme Court held that it is immaterial whether the public servant was personally in a position to show favour, as the statute penalizes accepting illegal remuneration as a motive for rendering or attempting to render service with any public servant. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the conviction.
- Does conviction under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 require that the public servant accused of accepting illegal gratification be personally in a position to show favour to the complainant?
- Is it an offence for a public servant to accept illegal remuneration as a motive for rendering or attempting to render service with any other public servant?
- Section 161, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner was a record-keeper in the office of the Income-tax Department at Bahawalpur. He was arrested by a raiding party headed by a Magistrate while accepting Rs,300 as illegal gratification from Amir Ali (PW-1), a timber merchant of Bahawalpur.
After a regular trial, he was convicted of an offence under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code, read with section 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act, by the Special Judge (Central) and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. On appeal, the High Court set aside his conviction under section 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act, but maintained his conviction and sentence under section 161, P.P.C.. He seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court.
2. In support of this petition, the only contention raised is that the petitioner was mere record- keeper in the Income -tax Department and as such he was not in a position to show any favour to Amir Ali in any manner. Thus, his case did not fall within section 161, P.P.C. This contention is without any merit. It is in evidence that the petitioner on his own went to the business premises of Amir Ali (PW-1.) and told him that he had been assessed to income-tax after receipt of his papers from Lahore and that Amir Ali should strike a bargain with him. He demanded Rs, 1,000 for hushing up the matter but the bargain was struck at Rs,500. It is immaterial whether the petitioner was or was not in a position himself to show any favour to Amir Ali, for, inter alia, section 161, P.P.C.Makes it an offence for any public servant to accept illegal remuneration as a motive for rendering or attempting to render any service with any public servant. In Akhtar Hussain Khan v. State (1974 S.C.M.R 199) the convictiion of an employee of a municipal servant was upheld by this Court even though it was not within his power to render the promised services to the complainant. The petitioner's conviction does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The petition is dismissed.