1985 P Cr (PLP)

Date of hearing: 25th September, 1984. This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Sahiwal whereby he on 28‑6‑1980 convicted Abdul Rehman appellant under section 468, P.P.C. and sentenced him to 4 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.5,000 in default thereof to further R.I. for 6 months.

2. The appellant was working as Canal Patwari. The charge against him was that during his posting in Chak No. 110/9‑L from February, 1967 to January, 1968, he accepted illegal gratification from different persons of the Chak and by making dishonest alterations in the entries of Khatoonis of canal record and showing less assessment of the water rates and revenues, he caused wrongful loss to the Government in order to show favour to different persons. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case prosecution examined 22 witnesses. The persons from whom the appellant had allegedly accepted bribe did not support the prosecution case. Muhammad Hussain Ziledar P.W., however stated that he had found the revenue record prepared by the appellant to be ficticious and forged.

4. The appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., denied the incriminating circumstances. He did not lead any evidence in defence.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution has failed to prove a case punishable under section 468, P.P.C. inasmuch as the documents which were falsely prepared by him were not produced in the Court. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State while supporting the judgment of the trial Court frankly admitted that the documents which were allegedly forged for the purpose of cheating were not even produced in the Court.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the appellant was tried for the commission of offences punishable under section 161, Cr.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for having received illegal gratification from different persons in order to show favour to them and also under section 468, P.P.C. for having committed forgery to cheat someone. The trial Court acquitted him of the charges under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) 47 and convicted him under section 468, P.P.C. holding that he had forged revenue record which was seen by Mushtaq Hussain P.W. who found some alterations made by the appellant in the entries therein. The trial Court in its judgment stated that the appellant had made some forgery in document Exh.P.F. The relevant portion of the judgment may be reproduced conveniently:‑-- "I have gone through the evidence on the file and have also given full consideration to the arguments advanced by both the sides. The main argument advanced by the defence counsel is that the witnesses who were alleged to have paid the bribe money to Abdul Rehman accused for getting the less assessment of water rate and of Land Revenue have been declared hostile. These witnesses did not prove the motive and thus the whole case has no legs to stand. I do not agree with this argument of the defence counsel that a case in which the motive is not proved the remaining evidence on the file cannot be taken into consideration. The evidence against the accused is to be read as a whole and not piecemeal. P.W.1 Ramzan, P.W.2 Dilloo. P.W.3 Wali Muhammad, P.W.4 Ismail, P.W.5 Said Muhammad, P.W.6 Daulat Muhammad, P.W.7 Ahmad, P.W.8 Shahamad, P.W.18 Sheikh Muhammad, P.W.19 Bhala and P.W.20 Rajey Khan are the witnesses who did not state that they had paid any bribe money to the accused and thus they were declared hostile by the prosecution. These witnesses are the beneficiaries of the less assessment of water rate and of land revenue and, therefore, had a reason not to tell the truth. Besides these witnesses there are other important witnesses who have supported the prosecution case. No doubt the element of motive is missing yet there is strong evidence against the accused to show that he affected false and incorrect entries in the revenue record with his own handwriting. Mushtaq Hussain Ziledar P.W.13 stated that the accused who was a canal Patwari acted under him from 5‑2‑1967 to 31‑1‑1968. The accused was incharge of Chak No.110/9‑L and the accused Patwari prepared the Khatooni of Chak No.110/9‑L regarding Kharif crop of 1967. This witness categorically stated that the copy of Dhal Bachh Abyana Exh.P.F. was prepared by him with a comparison from the original Dhal Bachh and the same was signed by him but later on the accused Patwari made alterations and affected bogus entries by changing the entries in Exh.P.F. and thereby the accused reduced the payable amount due to the Government to the tune of Rs.750. This witness confirmed that the false and bogus entries were seen by him carefully which had been inserted by the accused whose handwriting he could very well identify. The statement of this witness does not leave any. doubt about the alterations disfiguration and false entries affected by the accused in the revenue record. I also do not see any reason to disbelieve the statement of this important witness under whom the accused worked for a sufficient long period. There is also no motive on the part of this witness to falsely state against the accused. Furthermore, the accused did not put any single question to this witness as to why he was deposing against him. In fact the statement of this witness is sufficient to prove that the accused Patwari affected false and bogus entries in the revenue record for the purpose of showing less assessment of water rate and of land revenue while acting as public servant and during the discharge of his official duties. P.W.11 Abdul Razzaq retired Ziledar and Muhammad Bakhsh P. W.15 retired Kanungo have also supported the prosecution version. The statement of Ch. Inayat Ullah P.W.16 who was the then Tehsildar also strongly supports the allegations of making less assessment in water rate and in land revenue by the accused. His detailed report in writing is worth consideration. The report Exhs. P.W.16/A to P.W.16/K shows that the accused made false and bogus entries at numerous different items by changing the original entries into false entries with his own handwriting. According to this witness grade‑wise Abyana under sub‑column 10 of Khata No.202 came to Rs.85.81 but the accused Patwari evidently changed this amount to Rs.15.81 and the grand total under column No.14 was encircled and a wrong total was also affected by the accused who put the Government to a monetary loss. Similarly at numerous other items detailed in the written report Exhs.P.W.16/A to P.W.16/K openly show that this accused affected entries of false and bogus character in the revenue record and thereby caused a loss to the Government." I however, find that since the prosecution has not produced the original documents i.e. Khatoonis, etc. Which were subject‑matter o1 the charge, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant had forged some documents. The statement made by Mushtaq Hussain P.W. that he had seen some forged documents which were in the hand of the appellant in the absence of the original documents would not even be admissible in evidence. As far the observation made by the trial Court that according to the statement of Mushtaq Hussain P.W., there were forgeries made by the appellant in the document Exh.P.F., I find that the same is not supported by the statement of the witnesses. The witnesses never said that the appellant had made any forgery therein. Since the original documents allegedly forged by the appellant were not produced and that Mushtaq Hussain P.W. had said nothing about the forgery committed by the appellant with respect to document Exh.P.F., I am of the opinion that it would be unsafe to uphold the conviction of the appellant recorded by the trial Court under section 468, P.P.C.

7. For what has been stated above, giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charge. I.D. Appeal accepted.