Law: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947

Section: 5(2)

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 161

(a) Prevention of Corruption Act (V of 1947)     S. 5(2) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161 Appreciation of evidence ¬Mere fact that conversation between the complainant and the accused was not heard and the passing of the tainted money was not seen by the Magistrate will not entitle the accused to acquittal if other trustworthy and independent evidence is available on record against him.   Malik Umer Hayat v. The state 1998 SCMR 586 and Abdul Ghafoor v. The State PLD 1996 Lah. 17 ref.   (b) Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947)     S. 5(2) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161 Appreciation of evidence ¬Presence of accused in the house of the complainant on the relevant date and time had shown his interest in getting the illegal gratification which was actually recovered from him at the time of raid when he threw the tainted money from his pocket in the presence of the witnesses Independent witnesses like the Magistrate and the Inspector who had no enmity or grudge against the, accused had supported the af9resaid facts Complainant also had supported the prosecution version in toto in his examination in chief Non¬seeing of the passage of money and non hearing of the conversation between the accused and the complainant by the Magistrate, in the circumstances, was not material Conviction and sentence of accused were upheld accordingly.   Malik Umer Hayat v. The State 1998 SCMR 586 and Abdul Ghafoor v. The State PLD 1996 Lah. 17 ref.   Ch. Muhammad Abdus Saleem for Appellant. Sh. Muhammad Sharif for the State.   hearing date: 16th May, 2001. JUDGMENT This appeal has been directed. against the judgment, dated 28 1 199E passed by the Special Judge Anti Corruption, Sargodha, in case F.I.R. No.45 of 1991, dated 4 5 1991 by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to three years R.I. under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 alongwith fine of Rs.30,000 and in default to further undergo six months R.I. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that Muhammad Abdullah appellant teas serving as. A.S. I. at Police Station City Chiniot. The complainant of the case…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492