2005 PLP 1449 (YLR)

Muhammad Anwar appellant was convicted for offences under sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. vide judgment, dated 15-1-2000 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.1,000 or in default of payment thereof to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for each one of the above-mentioned offences separately. Through the same judgment the appellant was also convicted for an offence under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default of payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment passed against the appellant vide ordered to run concurrently and the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to him. However, through the same judgment the learned trial Court had acquitted the appellant co-accused namely Muhammad Akram. The appellant has challenged his convictions and sentences before this Court through the present appeal.

2. The necessary facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant was serving as Patwari Consolidation in Mauza Serai Sharin, Tehsil and District Okara during the years 1986-87 and the allegation against him is that after obtaining illegal gratification to the tune of Rs.26,000 from one Saddi Ahmad he had validly entered a mutation of gift regarding transfer of a parcel of land from the name of a paternal aunt of the said Saddi Ahmad to the name of the Saddi Ahmad but subsequently he had removed the said mutation from the Revenue Record and had instead place thereon a forged mutation showing transfer of that land from the name of the said paternal aunt to the names of the said Saddi Ahmad as well as his step-brothers namely Muhammad Nawaz etc. Upon a complaint in that regard filed by the said Saddi Ahmad before the then Deputy Commissioner, Okara an inquiry was held and thereafter F.I.R. No.15 was registered against the appellant and his co-accused namely Muhammad Akram at Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Okara on 7-10-1996 for offences under sections 161/409/ 420/268/471, P.P.C. and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 upon the complaint of the then Deputy Commissioner, Okara. After completion of investigation a challan was submitted and thereafter the learned Trial Court framed a charge against the appellant and his co-accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.

3. During the trial the prosecution produced seven witnesses in support of its case against the appellant and his co-accused. In their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant and his co-accused denied and controverted all the allegations of fact levelled against them by the prosecution and professed their innocence. Muhammad Akram co-accused appeared before the learned Trial Court as D.W.1 and two other witnesses were produced in the defence. At the conclusion of the trial the learned Trial Court acquitted the appellant's co-accused namely Muhammad Akram but, after finding the prosecution's case against the appellant to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned and detailed above. Hence, the present appeal before this Court.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the State and have gone through the record of this case with their assistance. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and, thus, the learned trial Court was not justified in convicting the appellant. As against that the learned counsel for the State has maintained that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the guilt of the appellant to the hilt.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that there are essentially three aspects of this case, i.e. the alleged receipt of illegal gratification by the appellant, the alleged removal of the original mutation from the Revenue Record by the appellant and forgery of the substituting mutation by the appellant for its use as official record. A careful evaluation of the record of this case has left no doubt in my mind that none of the these aspects of this case had been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

6. As regards the allegation pertaining to receipt of illegal gratification by the appellant it may be pertinent to mention that the said allegation had been levelled by the prosecution against both the appellant as well as his co-accused namely Muhammad Akram, Halqa Qanungo but the said co-accused had been acquitted by the learned Trial Court and his acquittal has not been challenged either by the State or by the complainant party. In his complaint filed by Saddi Ahmad before the then Deputy Commissioner, Okara no date, time or place of receipt of that illegal gratification by the appellant has been mentioned and during the trial no witness was produced in that regard to substantiate the said allegation of Saddi Ahmad. Admittedly no such amount was ever recovered from the appellant's possession during the investigation of this case. It may not be out of place to mention here that the said illegal gratification had allegedly been paid by the said Saddi Ahmad to the appellant for the purposes of entering a mutation which statedly was the original and correct mutation but that mutation is non-existent on the record. It is also of critical importance to observe in this context that the said illegal gratification had allegedly been paid by the said Saddi Ahmad the appellant some time in the year, 1986 but a complaint in that regard had been lodged by Saddi Ahmad for the first time before the then Deputy Commissioner, Okara in the year 1961, i.e. after about a decade. The said illegal gratification had allegedly been paid to the appellant for doing the right thing but a complaint in that respect had been lodged after things had statedly gone wrong in the next ten years. In these circumstances the said allegation against the appellant has been found by me to be an afterthought and the same had also not been proved before the learned Trial Court through any independent evidence.

7. As far as the allegation regarding removal of the original mutation from the Revenue Record is concerned it is admitted at all hands that there is no independent proof available on the record of this case to the effect that any such original mutation ever existed, as not even a photocopy of the same is either available in the Revenue Record or was placed on the record of the learned Trial Court. No witness had been produced by the prosecution to claim that he had seen the appellant removing any such document from the Revenue Record or to establish that it was none other than the appellant himself who could have removed that documents. In view of this state of the evidence in this case I have found this allegation against the appellant to be based upon nothing but conjectures and suppositions which have no place in criminal law.

8. Adverting to the aspect of this case regarding the alleged forgery of a subsequent mutation by the appellant and its use suffice it to observe that not a single witness had claimed before the learned Trial Court that it was the appellant himself who had forged the relevant mutation. No comparison of handwriting or signatures was ever undertaken in this case so as to establish the alleged forgery by the appellant. Even otherwise the status of the relevant document as a forged or incorrect document is also quite doubtful inasmuch as through the said document the paternal aunt of Saddi Ahmad was shown to have transferred her land in favour of the said Saddi Ahmad as well as his step-brothers and it is not denied that neither the said paternal aunt of Saddi Ahmad nor his step brothers have even come forward so far with any complaint before any Court or authority maintaining that the said mutation was forged or factually incorrect. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the transferees of that land on the basis of the said mutation are still recorded in the Jamabandi as the owners of that land on the basis of the said transfer and the said transferees are still jointly in possession of that land. In these circumstances even the allegation of forgery of this co-called subsequent mutation does not ring true. No evidence whatsoever was produced by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court to establish that the appellant had ever used that allegedly forged mutation for any purpose and, thus, even this aspect of the case had failed to travel beyond a bald assertion and had remained far from being established or proved.

9. Pursuant to the discussion made above a conclusion is inescapable that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. This appeal is, therefore, allowed, the convictions and sentences of the appellant recorded by the learned Trial Court are set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge. The appellant had been admitted to bail by this Court on 14-2-2000 during the pendency of this appeal. His bail bond as well as surety shall stand discharged. H.B.T./M-892/L Appeal allowed.