Case Details

Citation(s)
1970 SLG 3170 1970 SLD 3170 = 1970 SCMR 770
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal N6. 74 of 1956, decided on 11th December 1956 .
Presented By: Muhammad Munir, C. J., M. Shahabuddin, A. R. Cornelius, Muhammad Sharif and Amiruddin Ahmad, JJ
Nazir Ahmed Khan, senior Advocate Supreme Court (Dost Muhammad Khan, Advocate with him) instructed by M. Siddique, Attorney for the state. S.A. Mahmud, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for state.

RASHID AHMAD-Appellant

VERSUS

THE STATE-Respondent

Law: Evidence Act (I of 1872)

Section: 133

(On appeal from the judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated. the, 20th ,October. 1955; -in: Criminal Appeal Xo.,739 of 1955),. (a) Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 133-Accomplice-Corro boration-Informer complainant giving information to Anti Corruption authorities soon after demand of bribe and getting accused caught red-handed with tainted money-Not an accomplice No corroborative evidence necessary to believe such a witness. (b) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 133-Accomplice-Corrobo ration-Office clerk of Government servant (caught red-handed with bribe money) preparing wrong bill for amount found to have had no knowledge of accused arrest and release on bail in connection with charge of receiving illegal gratification Clerk held not an accomplice and his evidence required no corroboration to be relied upon.   JUDGMENT SHAHABUDDIN, J This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the high court of West Pakistan at Lahore by which the conviction under section 5(2) of the prevention of corruption Act, 1947 and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years fine and a fine of Rs 2,000 imposed on the appellants Rashid Ahmed were maintained and his appeal was dismissed. The case for the prosecution was to the following effect. Inayat Ullah, the: complainant (P. W.. I), who was managing a workshop in Lahore for about two years, having taken it .on a monthly rental of Rs. 200 from Ahmad Din, a refugee, to whom, it had been allotted, applied in June 1953 for its allotment to himself and his partner. The appellant who was an Assistant Rehabilitation Officer promised the complainant that be would see that the workshop was allotted to him. Thereafter under threat to set up the workshop he obtained from the complainant Rs. 500 in August 1953, Rs. 200 in November the same year and Rs. 300 in January 1954, but in May 1954, when he demanded Rs. 500 on a similar threat the complainant contacted the Anti Corruption Authorities, having promised on pay the appellant Rs. 200 on 8th May 1954, in the workshop at 11 a.m. and the balance a week later. Or tile morning of 8th May, 1954, P. NX 13, an Inspector of Police and P. W. 14, who, was then a…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register