Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD YAQUB VS Respondent: THE STATE
1985 P Cr
1985 P Cr. L J 2400
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Munir Khan, J
MUHAMMAD YAQUB‑‑Appellant
versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 701 of 1984, heard on 11th February, 1985.
Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 5(2)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161‑‑Accused (Constable) allegedly snatching currency note of ten rupees from Truck Driver‑ Truck Driver not produced by prosecution‑‑Evidence produced by prosecution showing that currency note was taken by accused without consent of Truck Driver‑‑‑ Allegation, if accepted at its face value, held, no case of acceptance of illegal gratification within meaning of S. 161, P.P.C. made out‑‑Conviction set aside in circumstances.
Ch. Bashir Ahmad for Appellant.
Shams Mehmood for the State.
Date of hearing: 11th February, 1985.
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Sargodha, whereby he on 18‑12‑1984 convicted Muhammad Yaqub appellant under section 161, P.P.C. and sentenced him to a fine of Rs.1,000, in default thereof R.I. for two months.
2. The appellant was a constable. The charge against him was that he snatched Rs.10 from Abdul Wahhab, Truck Driver. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case prosecution examined 4 witnesses. They supported the prosecution case.
3. When examined under section 342, Cr. P. C., the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. In defence he produced no witnesses.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the charge against the appellant as framed by the trial Court, accepted at its face value, no offence punishable under section 161, P.P.C. was committed by the appellant. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial. Court.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the charge against the appellant was that he snatched Rs.10 from Abdul Wahhab, Truck Driver; that Abdul Wahhab has not been produced and that the evidence produced by the prosecution also shows that the currency note of Rs.10 was taken by the appellant without consent of Abdul Wahhab, Truck Driver.
6. For what has been found above, I am of the view that the allegation accepted at its face value, no case of acceptance of illegal gratification within the meanings of section 161, P.P.C. is made out and as such, the appellant has wrongly been convicted by the learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption under section 161, P.P.C. That being the position, there is no option but to set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant. Order accordingly.
H. A. Appeal accepted.