Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 161

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161 read with Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947), S. 5(2)-Trap case-Mere fact of recovery of tainted money from possession of accused without establishing connection between performance of official act and demand or payment of money-Does not prove a charge of bribery under S. 161-Prosecution, held, failed to prove charges against accused beyond reasonable doubt-Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted. The mere fact of recovery of tainted money from the possession of the accused does not prove a charge of bribery under section 161, P. P. C. Before it can be said that the money was offered as a motive or reward for any of the purposes mentioned in section 161, P. P. C., a connection must be established between the performance of the official act and the demand or payment of money. Crown Prosecutor v. R. K. Pillai and another 49 Cr. L J 165 rel. Dates of hearing : 24th and 25th November 1969.   JUDGMENT This appeal arises out of judgment passed by M. M. J. Chowdhury, Additional Sessions Judge and Ex-Officio Special Judge, Faridpur, convicting the accused-appellant Abdul Kuddus Akond under section 161, Pakistan Penal Code and section 5 (2) of Act 11 of 1947 and sentencing him to suffer simple imprison ment for three months and to a fine of Rs. 500, in default to rigorous imprisonment for three months under section 161, Pakistan Penal Code, no separate sentence having been passed under section 5(2) of Act II of 1947. The prosecution case is that P. W. 1 Abdul Kader Khan was a dealer and miller of foodgrains at Lavikhola under P. S. Zanjira and carried on his business under Sub-Divisional Food Office of Madaripur and the appellant was the Head Clerk of Madariput Sub-Divisional Food Office in 1965. On 28-9-65 P. W. 1 went to the Sub-Divisional Food Office to ascertain the allotment of rice and wheat etc. in his name when the appellant asked him to produce all his account books and registers for his inspection. On 6-10-65 P. W. 1 produced his account books before the appellant and on 13-10-65 he, again went to him to take back his account books after making necessary deposit of money for allotment of foodgrains in his…