ILYAS AHMED vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment upholding the petitioner's conviction under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The petitioner, a WAPDA clerk, was accused of demanding illegal gratification to correct an allegedly excessive electricity bill. The petitioner contended that the case was fabricated due to a personal dispute regarding a business transaction involving his father. The core legal question before the Court is whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the failure to produce the electricity bill that served as the purported basis for the bribe demand. The Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the absence of the bill or supporting evidence from WAPDA regarding the bill's existence and nature raised significant doubts about the prosecution's case. The principle established is that the failure to produce crucial documentary evidence underpinning the alleged motive for a bribe can undermine the prosecution's burden of proof.
- Does the failure to produce the document alleged to be the basis for a bribe demand create reasonable doubt in a corruption case?
- Can a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 be sustained when the prosecution fails to produce the primary evidence establishing the motive for the alleged bribe?
- Section 161, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
ORDER
' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Judge in Chamber whereby his appeal against conviction and sentence under section 161, P.P.C.
Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was dismissed. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to one year R.I. With fine of Rs,1,000 or in default one month R.I.
2. According to the prosecution the complainant was a Cashier in a Firm M/s. Saga Sports Ltd., Sialkot. As the electricity bill for the month of January 1984 was in excess of Rs,562, in order to get it corrected, he went to the Revenue Office, WAPDA where the petitioner, a clerk in that office met him and demanded Rs,250 as illegal gratification. On the same day the petitioner visited the office of the complainant and was asked to come the next day. A trap was accordingly laid and the petitioner was apprehended with tainted currency notes. In his statement the petitioner denied the allegations and stated that his father was a manufacturer of Nawar and had supplied the same to the complainant, who had failed to make the payment. On this account he and his father had altercation with the complainant and hence this case has been framed against him although he had come to recover Rs,250, which was due to his father on account of the supply of Nawar. The petitioner was, however, convicted and sentenced as stated above, which has been maintained by the impugned judgment.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Besides the contradictions pointed out which, according to him, are material, he contended that although the bill which was alleged to be excessive and was the basis of the case, was not produced at any stage of the proceedings. According to the learned counsel in the absence of the said bill or any evidence from WAPDA to prove it, the prosecution case cannot stand. Leave is granted.
Cited by 1 case
- JAVED AHMED SIDDIQUI and others vs The STATE 2016 YLR 577