2007 PLP 1434 (MLD)

SABIHUDDIN AHMED, C.J.

These two Bail applications moved by different accused persons arise out of the same F.I.R. No. 6 of 2006 containing allegations under sections 467, 468, 477A/34, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, on the basis of which a case is proceeding in the Court of Special Judge, Anti-corruption, Larkana. Basically the allegations contained in the F.I.R. appear to be that one Muhammad Nawaz Shaikh was owner of about 6-38 Acres of agricultural land in Taluka Dokri and was survived by three sons and seven daughters, including one Shamsunnisa wire of accused Haji Muhammad Aslam and the names of all his 10 heirs were duly recorded in revenue records vide Entry No. 486.. Pursuant to the entry, the seven daughters are stated to have relinquished their shares by gifting 2.10 Acres in favour of their brother Nisar Ali Shaikh contemporaneously on the same date and entry to the said effect was also recorded vide Entry No.487. After almost 10 years, accused Muhammad Aslam, claiming to be the attorney of his wife Mst. Shamsunnisa, moved the D.D.O. (Revenue) complaining that his wife's property had been wrongly entered in the name of Nisar Ali Shaikh. The D.D.O. on 5-6-2006 passed an order directing accused Masood Ahmad Bughio, who was Mukhtiarkar of the area, to hold an inquiry and rectify the mistake. The latter without following the legal requirements proceeded to cancel the entry in favour of Nisar Ali Shaikh vide Entry No. 4079, dated 5-9-2003 and made the entry in the nature of Shamsunnisa in the revenue records. Such order was challenged before the EDO (Revenue) Larkana, who passed an order, dated 8-9-2004 cancelling the disputed entries and restored the original position in favour of Nisar Ali Shaikh.

2. As a consequence of such act, after obtaining permission from the competent authority, an F.I.R, was registered and criminal proceedings initiated. Bail was rejected by the trial Court, but interim bail was granted by a his Court to both the accused persons. It may also be pertinent to mention that civil litigation between the parties is pending and in Suit No. 38/2004 before the II Senior Civil Judge, Larkana, Msl. Shamsumlisa after having acknowledged that a document purported to be a gift in favour of Nisar Ali Shaikh was executed by her has sought its cancellation and revocation of the order of the EDO, Larkana, dated 8-9-2004.

3. Mrs. Waseem Samo, learned counsel for the Applicants, argued that the F.I.R. did not disclose commission of offence under sections 467, 471, 477-A, P.P.C. Alternatively, he contended that the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory degree and the grant of bail therefore, ought to be considered a rule rather than an exception.

4. Mr. Mahmood A. Qureshi, learned counsel for aggrieved person Nisar Ali Shaikh, pointed out that an offence under section 467, P.P.C. was punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for ten years and fine and, therefore, clearly tell within the prohibitory degrees in terms of section 497; Cr.P.C. Moreover, ot`1'ences of corruption committed by public servants ought to be viewed seriously and discretion to grant bail should not be liberally exercised as was held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Imtiaz Ahmed v. The State (PLD 1997 SC 545). He further argued that the change of entries in the revenue record stood fully established and a very strong prima facie case had been made out against the accused.

5. Having carefully considered the contentions of the learned counsel and being conscious of the principle that offence relating to corruption of public servants ought to be seriously viewed, I find it prima facie difficult to accept the contention that offence of forgery is made out. Reading sections 463 and 464 together, it appears that a false document would be one which is made to deceive a person or is displayed as one having been duly oracle with full knowledge that it was not so made. In the instant case Applicant Masood Ahmed Bughio, who was the concerned officer charged with the duty to pass orders for being entered in the record did allegedly pass an order. It may well be that he did so wrongly for which he may be liable for criminal misconduct but as long as he did not rely on some order purportedly made by any other authority which was in fact non-existent it might be difficult to establish forgery. As regards accused Muhammad Aslam, it may be mentioned that the fact a document purporting to be a gift-deed was executed has been practically acknowledged in the civil suit filed by this wife. In view of the foregoing, I am inclined to confirm the bail already granted. The bail on behalf of the applicant the Nizammudin is not pressed by Mr. Waseem Samo and his application is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./M-84/K Order accordingly.