MUHAMMAD MEHDI vs THE STATE

ORDER

' SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.---Petitioner Muhammad Mehdi seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 23-10-1997 delivered by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court in Chambers whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner assailing his conviction on the charge under section 161, P.P.C., read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was dismissed.

2. The facts of the prosecution case in brief are that Muhammad Naeem complainant in this case, an employee of one Muhammad Aslam, who was running a medical store, was hauled up in a case under the Hudood Ordinance. Raid was conducted on the said medical store and the petitioner, as head constable was Member of the said raiding party. Allegedly during the raid, 60 bottles of tincture and some opium were recovered. After investigation the petitioner and Muhammad Aslam were sent up to face their trial in a Court at Gujrat. It is alleged by the complainant Muhammad Naeem that the petitioner Muhammad Mehdi being a prosecution witness in this case demanded a bribe of Rs.200 from complainant Muhammad Naeem on the understanding that he would extend some help to him during the trial. The complainant did not wish to give the said bribe, and therefore, he approached the Anti-Corruption Department and moved an application. On 17-3-1987, on the receipt of the application of the complainant, a raiding party was constituted comprising of Muhammad Salaam P.W.4, complainant and Raja Muhammad Moazzam, Circle Officer, Anti-Corruption, headed by Muhammad Bashir Cheema, Resident Magistrate, Phalia. The complainant Muhammad Naeem produced three currency notes, one of the denomination of Rs.100 and two of the denomination of Rs.50 each. The numbers of the currency notes were noted and they were signed and handed over to the complainant. The complainant proceeded to the premises of the District Courts, Gujrat where the petitioner was present as on the said day the petitioner had to appear as a witness against the complainant. The complainant paid the money to the petitioner and on signal the Magistrate alongwith the members of the raiding party approached the petitioner and after reintroducing himself the Magistrate asked the petitioner to hand over the tainted money received by him. The petitioner denied to have received any money, however, the Magistrate tool out the money by inserting his hand in the pocket of the trouser of the petitioner. The petitioner tried to run away, but was apprehended by the members of the raiding party and on comparison, the currency notes were found to be the same, which were handed over to the complainant. Raja Muhammad Moazzanm, Circle Officer completed the investigation and sent up the petitioner to face trial in the Court of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Gujranwala. Vide judgment dated 1-6-1989, the learned Special Judge found the petitioner guilty on the charge under section 161, P.P.C., read with section 5(2) of PCA, and thus, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo R.I. For a term of nine months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default thereof, to suffer R.I. For three months. Appeal taken against the said judgment also failed.

3. In support of this petition, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was falsely implicated by the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner as a member of the raiding party, had raided the medical store where the petitioner worked, and thus, on account of said enmity the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case. It was further argued that conversation had not been heard by the Magistrate or any member of the raiding party, therefore, the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the petitioner. The learned Judge of the Lahore High Court had considered these arguments and on the basis of the overwhelming evidence of the Magistrate and Raja Muhammad Moazzam, Circle Officer, the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court rightly repelled the contentions raised in behalf of the petitioner. The conduct of the petitioner also goes a long way as a pointer torwards his guilt because he denied to have accepted the money which was then taken out by the Magistrate from his pocket and thereafter, the petitioner tried to run away from the premises of the Court, but was apprehended. The passing of the tainted currency notes was noted by the Magistrate, who saw the transaction while standing in the veranda outside the Court. In this view of the matter, nothing turns upon the absence of hearing of conversation. In our view the prosecution had established its case beyond any shadow of doubt. The High Court took a lenient view on account of the protracted trial, which the petitioner faced for more than 11 years and, thus, the sentence already undergone for about a month was considered to be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The conviction of the petitioner is justified on the record of the case. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this petition, the same is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.