Law: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947

Section: 5(2)

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 161

(a) Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)--   ---S.5(2)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161--Illegal gratification-­Complainant not supporting prosecution case fully and making admissions favourable to accused--High Court taking said admissions as obliging statements and holding that their effect was wiped off by answers given to questions put by Court--Mashir of recovery of certain papers, pertaining to case of complainant recovered from accused, not examined as witness--Held, accused was entitled to benefit of statement of complainant favouring accused and recovery of said papers from accused was not sufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt--Conviction and sentence set aside:-[Admission].   (b) Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)--   ---S.5(2)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161--Administration of criminal justice-- Cardinal principle--Benefit of statement favouring accused, held, should ordinarily be given to accused. JUDGMENT ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.--This appeal by leave arises out of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Sind High Court dismissing the appeal of the appellant against his conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Sukkur, under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of Act II of 1947. 2. At the material time the appellant was posted as a Tapedar Scarp, Sukkur, under the Land Acquisition Officer, L.S.R.II Wapda, Sukkur. The place of occurrence is said to be the Circuit House, Larkana, where it seems the Land Acquisition Officer was camping at the relevant time. The charge against the appellant was that in order to obtain higher rate of compensation for the agricultural lands of complainant Muhammad Buxal which had been acquired by the Government, for the purpose of seepage drain, he had demanded Rs.200 as illegal gratification. The complainant reported the matter to the Circle Officer Anti-Corruption Establishment and a trap was arranged. 3. The tainted money was not secured from the appellant but from the co-accused, one Liaquat who was the Kotwar serving in the same organization. However, according to the prosecution certain papers in connection with the…

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