Case Details

Citation(s)
1974 SLG 3037 = 1974 SLD 3037 = 1974 PCRLJ 234
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
Criminal Appeal No. 276 of 1972, decided on 2nd March 1973.
Presented By: Ghulam Rasool K. Shaikh, J
Qazi Muhammad Issa for Appellant. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for A.G. for the State.

RASOOL KHAN-Appellant

VERSUS

THE STATE--Opponent

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 161

Law: Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)

Section: 5(2)

  Penal Code (XLV of 1860)  S. 161 read with Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)-Bribe [Trap case] -Corroboration of complainant's testimony sought from evidence of a witness who is not independent on friendly terms with complainant-Tainted money not recovered either from person of accused or from drawer of table-Possibility existing of complainant himself surreptitiously placing money on ground in order to implicate accused on account of previous grouse-- Conviction and sentence set aside, in circumstances. Date of hearing: 26th February 1973.                                                                                                                       JUDGMENT This is an appeal against the judgment of the Special Judge, Central, Karachi, convicting the appellant for an offence under section 161, P. P. C./ (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs. 2000 or in default to undergo R. I. for 6 months. The appellant was working as S. D. O. Telephone, Sukkur in July 1969. He had purchased some furniture worth Rs. 850 through his subordinate Abdul Wahid Khan from complainant Muhammad Siddiq who had a furniture shop. The appellant paid Rs. 350 and. the balance was promised to be paid later but in spite of demand the amount was not paid. The com plainant had a telephone bearing No. 3/ 111 in his shop with extension to his godowns. The appellant issued a notice for the disconnection of the extension but in the meantime the complainant got the sanction from the Divisional Engineer, Telephones, Quetta for the extension and thereafter a demand notice was issued and he paid the amount. When the complainant demanded the balance of Rs. 500 due on furniture the appellant told him that it was appropriated towards the gratification or reward for allowing him the extension. Thereafter the appellant started…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register