2004 PLP 1200 (SCMR)

3. Facts relevant for the disposal of these petitions are that F.I.R No.8 of 1999 dated 15‑5‑1999 was lodged with the Deputy Director F.I.A. Crime Circle, Quetta, on the complaint of P.W. Rafique Ahmed Siyal, Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Quetta. It was alleged therein that petitioner Haji Muhammad Bashir in connivance with some other officials of the Cantonment Board and private persons, had committed a huge fraud in Cantonment Board, Quetta, by disposing of more than 500 plots through fake documents. The accused, through unfair means not only tampered the Government record but also prepared fake lease deeds, altered site plans of housing schemes belonging to the Cantonment Board and dispose of said plots illegally.

4. P.W.21 Habibullah Niazi took up the investigation, recorded statements of the witnesses, took into possession fake lease deeds being Articles A/1 to A/2551. During investigation, it was revealed that petitioner Farooq Ahmed Chaudhry, Executive Officer, Haji Muhammad Bashir, Land Superintendent and Abdullah Durrani tracer had signed the said documents and prepared fake site plans and got registered lease deeds from 1994 to 1998 with changed numbers The Investigating Officer recovered documents Articles A/2552 to A/2629 from the officials of the Cantonment Board and found that the plots were sold in Jinnah Town, Shehbaz Town and Gulistan Town and thereby caused a loss of Rs.41 crone to the Government exchequer.

5. He got specimen signatures of petitioner Haji Muhammad Bashir, Farooq Ahmed Chaudhry and Abdullah Durrani before the Magistrate and also obtained their routine signatures from the Cantonment Board and sent the same for comparison to Handwriting Expert. He also got recorded the confessional statement of Haji Muhammad Bashir, Mehrullah and Shabir Kamran and also recovered several documents from the house of Shabir Kamran at his pointation. He also collected copies of departmental inquiry reports against Abdullah Durrani and Farooq Ahmed Chaudhry. Riaz Hussain Shah, Secretary Cantonment Board and Rana Muhammad Azam, Land Superintendent also produced several documents, which were taken into possession them as Articles A/2630 to A/2741 and Articles A/2913 to A/2936.

6. After obtaining the sanction, he submitted charge sheet again. them before the Special Judge, Accountability Court‑1, Quetta

7. To substantiate its, case, prosecution examined 21 witnesses in all.

8. Petitioners in their respective statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the allegations and claimed innocence. However, petitioner Farooq Ahmed Chaudhry in his statement recorded under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. admitted that he remained Executive Officer of the Board from July, 1994 to May, 1998 and during this period lease deeds of Jinnah Town, Gulistan Town and Shahbaz Town were executed. He also admitted that during this period he signed lease deeds which were hundreds in number. On scrutiny of record of Sub Registrar and its comparison with office record, it was revealed that about 500 plots were registered, but no such record was available. He stated that 7 out of 524 lease deeds, bore his signatures, but showed ignorance about the remaining.

9. Petitioners Khaliq Dad, Haji Muhammad Bashir, Abdullah Durrani and co‑accused Mehrullah Khan and Shabir Kamran also recorded their statements on oath. Shabir Kamran stated that he being property dealer had dealt with 18/19 plots of Cantonment Board, Quetta. He was involved in sale transaction as per rules. He admitted to have got recorded his confessional statement. Accused Mehrullah Khan, in his statement on oath stated that he had no concern with the sale and purchase of the disputed plots and had. also no concern with Shabir Kamran, whereas Khaliq Dad petitioner stated on oath that he, purchased plots from Nadeem Ahmed and sold the same to Farooq Qureshi. A quarrel took place in between him and Farooq Qureshi on the demand of premium, as such, he paid ,Rs.2,60,000 to Farooq Qureshi, and Naeem Ahmed paid him Rs.1,60,

000. He denied about the sale of plots to Muzaffar‑ud‑Din and Saiqa Waheed‑ul‑Hassan.

10. Petitioner Haji Muhammad Bashir stated on oath that he took the charge of the Office of Land Superintendent from Muhammad Younas, Clerk who handed over him the record of approval of plots in question. He used to receive the files through proper channel after verification. About confessional statement before the Magistrate he stated that the same was made as per directions of the Army.

11. None of them produced any evidence in defence.

12. We have heard Messrs Kamran Murtaza and Sh. Zameer Hussain, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners and Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, learned Advocate Supreme Court for NAB and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case in minute particulars.

13. Mr. Kamran Murtaza, learned Advocate Supreme Court for petitioners Abdullah Durrani and Khaliq Dad mainly contended that legal and factual aspects of the controversies have not been appreciated in true perspective by the learned Division Bench, which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice, According to him, prosecution has failed to bring on record the evidence to connect the petitioner with crime. Abdullah Durrani is a low paid employee whereas Khaliq Dad is a property dealer. Regarding Khaliq Dad it is stated that he was property dealer and sold the plots after getting documents approved from the concerned departments and there is nothing on record to show that he was involved in the preparation of the forged documents Therefore, he was convicted and sentenced illegally, that retracted confessional. Statement of accused could not be made basis for conviction.

14. Learned counsel for petitioner Farooq Ahmed Chaudhry argued that the petitioner is innocent and the prosecution has failed to produce any cogent evidence to connect him with the commission of offence. He contended that the petitioner has done his job as per office rules and routine and the report of the Handwriting Expert is not reliable as it does not contain reasons for explaining genuine and forged signatures. He further contended that the learned trial Court has convicted the petitioner on retracted confessional statement of co‑accused without any corroboration.

15. Learned counsel for NAB on the other hand has defended the impugned judgment, which according to him is based on sound reasoning. He contended that as per procedure no auction was ever held in respect of 524 plots. Despite ban, fake business of sale of plots was carried out. Prosecution has produced fake lease deeds, report of Handwriting Expert, confessional statements of petitioners, namely, Haji Muhammad Bashir and Khaliq Dad and circumstantial evidence which are in line and confirm the involvement of petitioners in this illegal business.

16. The prosecution has fully established the fact that 524 plots situated in Jinnah Town, Shahbaz Town and Gulistan Town were disposed of on the basis of forged lease deeds. It is pertinent to note that this land scam was unearthed by complainant Rafique Ahmed Siyal, Executive Officer, who after taking charge from petitioner Farooq Ahmed Chaudhry came to know about the fraudulent sale and lease deeds of the plots by calling the purchasers to make payment of additional amounts. Admittedly, the entire fraud has been played by the petitioners/ officials of Cantonment Board in connivance with the private persons the property dealers: In this case, there are two sets of accused, one consisted of officials, namely, petitioners Farooq Ahmed Chaudhry, Executive Officer, Haji Muhammad Bashir, Land Superintendent and Abdullah Durrani, Tracer, whereas the second set consisted of Shabir Kamran, Khaliq Dad. Muhammad Ali Hazara and Mehrullah Khan, the property dealers. There is no real dispute to the fact that they, in furtherance of common intention and league with each other had sold, the plots. It has also been established, that petitioner Farooq Ahmed Chaudhry being Executive Officer was the head of the Boar: and used to chair its meeting and all the forged lease deeds and maps were approved in the meeting of the Cantonment Board. It has also been brought on record that it was during the period of ban, that all those fake allotment letters and fake lease deeds were issued and executed. Besides the sale of the fake plots were regularized on payment of additional amounts by the purchasers. The alterations were also made in the maps of said plots, which fact is not disputed. The said layout plans for forged lease deeds were regularized in the meeting of Cantonment Board under the chairmanship of petitioner. Farooq Ahmad Chaudhry. The contention that he had no knowledge about the preparation, forgery of allotments order and preparation of fake documents, is without any substance.

17. To substantiate further reference is made to the evidence of P.W.5 Riaz Hussain, who in unequivocal terms stated that from 26th May, 1996 to December, 1999 he performed his duties under the supervision of Farooq Ahmed Chaudhry. During this period entire mail and other documents were received by petitioner Farooq Ahmed Chaudhry personally. P.W.19 Ahmed Ali Riaz stated that he purchased three plots about which he came to know that their lease deeds were forged, which fact he brought to the notice of petitioner Farooq Ahmed Chaudhry, who assured him that the lease deeds were genuine and not forged. He further stated that the petitioners had the knowledge of preparation of forged lease deeds and other connected matter. Above all, petitioner Farooq Ahmad Chaudhry in his statement recorded on oath has admitted that 7 out of 524 lease deeds bore his signatures. Undoubtedly, the allotment of those 7 plots was illegal. Thus there cannot be an exception to the conviction and sentence, awarded to him by the trial Court and upheld by the High Court.

18. So far as Haji Muhammad Bashir, Land Superintendent and Abdullah Durrani, Tracer are concerned, they were fully involved in preparing the forged documents and misappropriating the amounts of Rs.14 crore. In the whole affairs of disposal of the plots on forged deeds, they had played an active role. Petitioner Haji Muhammad Bashir used to maintain the record regarding mutation entries, survey of boundary pillars, maintenance of registers, preparation and issue of site plan, registers and recovery of land. Under the rules, the site plans arid lease deeds were prepared under his supervision. It has also been established that petitioner Abdullah Durrani, Tracer had prepared the lease deeds and site plans. Not only this but after payment of amounts by the purchasers, the construction on the sites was inspected by petitioner Haji Muhammad Bashir and his other staff. It could not be said that they had no knowledge about the entire affairs. There is nothing on record to show that the confessional statements were obtained under duress or torture. Even if the confessional statements are ignored, yet there is other sufficient material to connect the petitioner with this crime.

19. Learned High Court has already taken a lenient view by modifying the sentences of the petitioners, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment which is accordingly maintained.

20. The petitions are dismissed and leave to appeal refused. N.H.Q./A‑45/S Leave refused.