Law:

Section:

(a) Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)--- ----Ss. 5 & 4---Appreciation of evidence---Major part of the prosecution case about payment of bribe of Rs.3,000 to the accused was not only not supported by any evidence, but indeed stood falsified by prosecution's own witness---Magistrate, Circle Officer and the Constable who claimed to have recovered the tainted money from the accused, had not stated that the money was paid in their presence or that they had heard any conversation between complainant and the accused at the time of handing over the money---Presumption against the accused created by S. 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, had been made rebuttable by qualifying the same with the clause "unless the contrary is proved"---Accused and the complainant being co-villagers a suggestion put to the Circle Officer in his cross-examination that the complainant had paid the money to the accused for delivery to his brother at his village, was quite plausible---In view of the suggested plausible explanation regarding the money recovered from the accused, the presumption of receiving the money as bribe envisaged by S.4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 stood displaced, particularly in the absence of any direct evidence to show that the money was paid as bribe---Accused was acquitted in circumstances. (b) Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)--- ----S. 4---Presumption where public servant accept gratification---Presumption envisaged by S.4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, is rebuttable in view of the qualifying clause "unless the contrary is proved"---Such burden of proving to the contrary upon the accused is lighter than the burden of proof upon the prosecution---Prosecution has to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, while the accused is require to show the possibility of his defence being true---Accused need not necessarily lead evidence in every case---The contrary can be proved by the examination of the accused on or without oath or by the circumstances of the case. JUDGMENT ALI SAIN DINO METLO, J.---Finding him guilty of receiving Rs.4,000 as bribe, the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Larkana, by his judgment, dated…

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