5. Illegal gratification —Mere fact Rs. 1000/- each was recovered from appellants would in no way link them with occurrence because identity of aforesaid currency could not be established that it was the same money which was received by them from complainant–A suspicion about guilt of a person, howsoever strong cannot be substituted for a proof which is required to he brought on record to establish an offence against offender which undoubtedly is duty of prosecution to establish beyond any reasonable doubt-Appeal accepted. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1154 There is no evidence on record that any one of other two P.Ws, i.e., Inspector and raiding Magistrate had witnessed passing on of recovered tainted money–Mere recovery of tainted money from person of appellant, is not enough to prove charge under Section 161 PPC read with Section 5 of P.C. Act, 1947–Held: In absence of any evidence to prove that tainted money had been passed on to appellant by complainant, Prosecution has failed to prove charge against appellant–Appeal accepted. PLJ 1994 Cr.C. (Lahore) 404 Contention that sanction far prosecution was not required a offence was a new one constituted under MLO33-Contention repelled and held that offence was not one newly constituted under M. L. 0.33 hence in absence of proper sanction trial was without jurisdiction Conviction by Summary Military Court. held, of no legal effect-S. 161. Penal Code (1860).