Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUNIR AHMAD VS Respondent: THE STATE
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Muhammad Munir Khan Title: MUNIR AHMAD vs THE STATE Case No.: Criminal Appeal No, 886 of 1979 Date of Judgment:1984-07-10 Reported As: 1985 P Cr. L J 80 Result: Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ' This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Additional Special Judge, Anti- Corruption, Lahore, whereby he on 15-8-1979 convicted Munir Ahmad appellant under section 161 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to six months' R.I. And a fine of Rs, 50 in default thereof to further R.I. For three months. 2. The appellant was posted as Foot Constable. The charge against him is that he demanded and then accepted Rs, 40 as illegal gratification from Abdul Majeed P.W. 2. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried. 3. To prove its case prosecution examined three witnesses. Baqir Hussain Shah, Head Constable is a formal witness. Abdul Majeed P.W. 2 supported the allegations against the appellant that he not only demanded illegal gratification but accepted Rs, 40 as bribe money. Anwar Ali Inspector C.I.A., P.W.3 investigated the case. 4. The appellant when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., denied all the incriminating circumstances and did not lead any evidence in defence. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that although it was a raid case and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the appellant by Capt. Nigar Hussain, yet the Officer who conducted the raid was not examined. ' Learned counsel for the State has, however, supported the judgment of the trial Court. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that Capt. Nigar Hussain who conducted raid and recovered tainted currency notes from the appellant has not been produced by the prosecution and as such, the statement of the complainant alone remains in the field. In the
---
## Page 2
circumstances of the case, particularly, when the raid was not supervised by the Magistrate, I am not prepared to place implicit reliance on the uncorroborated testimony of a decoy witness. 7. For what has been stated above, giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charge.