RASHID AHMAD vs The STATE

MUHAMMAD GUL, J.-The petitioner, who at the relevant time, was employed as Upper Division Clerk-cum-Record Keeper in the office of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lahore was tried and convicted by the Special Judge (Central), Lahore for an offence under section 161, P. P. C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentenced to four months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100.00 or in default to undergo further R. I. For one month. On appeal, to the High Court, his conviction was maintained but the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone, though the sentence of fine was maintained.

2. The case against the petitioner was that Ghulam Rasul (P W. 2) was prosecuting the claim for the grant of cash compensation on behalf of his grandmother, in the office of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lahore. He contacted the petitioner and his colleague, Abdul Hamid, when the latter, who was actually concerned with the file of the case demanded illegal gratification in the form of "entertainment". Ghularn Rasul informed the Special Police Establishment who after recording the statement arranged a raid under the supervision of Mr. Afzal Hayat, Second Class Magistrate. Ghulam Rasul was then handed over two currency notes of Rs. 10 each after being marked in the presence of the witnesses. He later gave the same to the petitioner near the Cigarettes vendor's shop while the Inspector S. P. E. And the Magistrate stayed at some distance. At shop the petitioner was also given cold drink. Upon a signal by Ghulam Rasul the Magistrate and the other witnesses went up to the petitioner and recovered the two tainted currency notes which he still held in his hand. His statement Exh. P. W. 1/3 was also recorded in which he admitted the receipt of the currency notes which he stated were "intended to be given to his colleague Abdul Hamid for the finalization of the compensa--petition case. On a personal search of the petitioner another amount of Rs. 555, was recovered. In his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. The petitioner, however, went back from his written statement Exh. P. W. 1/3, admitting the receipt of the currency notes.

3. The prosecution case rests on the evidence of Ghulam Rasul, Inspector/S. P. T. And the Naib- Tehsildar. The petitioner on the other hand, examined five witnesses in defence who stated that the tainted currency notes were not recovered from him but were picked up from the ground near the staircase and that the case was engineered by Ghulam Rasul because of previous enmity.

4. The learned Special Judge and the learned Single Judge in the High Court, both accepted the prosecution case. Lamed counsel for the petitioner argued that even if the prosecution evidence were to be accepted the petitioner's conviction under section 161, P. P. C. Cannot be maintained because, as Upper Division Clerk-corn-Record Keeper, he was not officially concerned with the case of Ghulam Rasul relating to cash compensation payable to his grandmother. It is not, however, denied that the petitioner was an employee in the office of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lahore where claim for cash compensation was pending The money was paid to him to use his good offices with Abdul Hamid, who was actually concerned with the case. This amply satisfies the requirement of section 161, P. P. C. Amt section 5(2) of Act II of 1947. The remainder argument of the learned counsel concerns the appreciation of evidence which lies peen believed by the two Courts below and this Court not being a criminal Court of appeal cannot undertake a fresh appraisal of evidence, There is no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.