1991 PLP 1971 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 29th May, 1991. Ramzan and Murad petitioners alongwith 10 others were tried under section 506/342/148/149, P.P.C. by Magistrate Section 30, Jhang.

2. The prosecution case was/is that Muhammad Ramzan accused/appellant had to pay Rs.30 as land revenue in May, 1981, he was defaulter in payment of land revenue. On 26-5-1981, Abdul Razzaq, Naib- Tehsildar alongwith Ghulam Farid Girddwar and Dihneer Peon and Ghulam Muhammad Peon, joined Muhammad Ali Lambardar of village Sher Garh to effect the recovery of arrears of land revenue. Naib-Tehsildar summoned Muhammad Ramzan through his peons and demanded the arrear of Rs.35 from him. Muhammad Ramzan allegedly refused to pay the arrears or produce any surety. Abdul Razzaq, Naib-Tehsildar declared that he (Muhammad Ramzan) was under arrest. Before Muhammad Ramzan could physically be taken into custody, Murad appellant came there, raised lalkara upon which 10 acquitted accused came there and launched attack on Naib Tehsildar and his companions. Thereafter, Muhammad Ramzan made good his escape. The petitioners and their co-accused denied the charge.

3. To prove its case, prosecution produced 8 witnesses. Ghulam Farid Girdawar P.W. 1 supported the prosecution case as stated above. He further stated that the appellants and his co-accused had abused the Naib-Tehsildar and his companions and rescued Muhammad Ramzan from the lawful arrest. Ghulam Qasim P.W. 2, Ghulam Muhammad P.W. 3, Dilmeer P.W. 4, Muhammad Ali Lambardar P.W. 8 and Abdul Razzaq, Naib-Tehsildar P.W. 15 have supported the prosecution case in all material particulars. The rest of the evidence was/is of formal nature.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the petitioners and his co- accused denied the incriminating circumstances. They produced Raja D.W. 1.

5. While acquitting the 10 co-accused, the trial Court convicted Muhammad Ramzan petitioner under section 224 and Murad under section 225, P.P.C. and sentenced them to 2 years' R.I. each. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed-by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhang on 21-3-1983.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts; that there was no warrant for the arrest of the petitioners; that Muhammad Ramzan having not been physically taken into custody, no offence punishable under section 224 or 225, P.P.C, was made out and that the order of the Naib-Tehsildar for the arrest of Muhammad Ramzan petitioner was illegal. Learned counsel for the State has supported the conviction and sentence of the petitioners.

7. I have considered the matter carefully. I feel persuaded to accept this revision for the reasons that no warrant for the arrest was issued by the Naib Tehsildar; that no attempt was made to recover the land revenue by attachment of the crops before giving oral order for the arrest of petitioner; that although 12 persons allegedly launched attack on Naib-Tehsildar and his companions yet not a single person received any injury during the occurrence; that the statements of the eye-witnesses have not been acted upon to the extent of 10 acquitted accused and that it is doubtful that the Naib-Tehsildar could straightaway order the arrest of Muhammad Ramzan defaulter. Pursuant to the above discussion, the revision is accepted. Giving them the benefit of doubt, the petitioners are acquitted of the charge. They are on bail. They stand discharged of the bail-bonds. MA.K./R-309/L Petition accepted.