1992 P Cr (PLP)

Under section 218, P.P.C. One year's R.I. and a fine of Rs.500, in default thereof 3 months' R.I. Under section 468, P.P.C. Two years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000, in default thereof to R.I. for six months. Under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2)

47. One year's R.I. and a fine of Rs.500, in default thereof to six months' R.I.

2. The appellant was working as Patwari in the year 1974-75. The charges against him were that he obtained Rs.220 as bribe from Muhammad Ibrahim P.W. and as such, committed an offence punishable under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2)47. (ii) That he removed the original leaf No.121 of Register Khasra Girdawari Exh.P.B. and placed leaf Exh.P.B./1 in its place showing thereon the name of Fazal Din against I01asra Numbers 1329, 1336 and 1337 in column of Kasht instead of the names of Muhammad Ibrahim and Muhammad Malik; and (iii) that after having prepared incorrect record, he supplied its copy Exh.P.C. on 2-7-1975 to Muhammad Ibrahim knowing and believing that it was a forged record and as such he committed offences punishable under sections 218 and 408, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its ease prosecution examined 9. witnesses. Muhammad Ibrahim P.W.2, Altaf Hussain P.W.4 and Rashid Ahmad P.W.5 appeared to prove acceptance of Rs.220 as bribe by the appellant from the complainant. Khuda Bakhsh, Naib Office Qanungo, P.W.1 stated that Exh.PA. is copy of Khasra Girdawari of. Khasras Nos.1329, 1336 and 1337: prepared by the appellant and that he produced original Khasra Girdawari pertaining to these numbers prepared by the appellant. He also identified the signatures and handwriting of the appellant. Muhammad Ibrahim P.W.2 supported the case of the prosecution. The rest of the evidence is more or less of formal nature.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. He produced two witnesses in defence.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its, case beyond reasonable doubts, inasmuch as, the allegation of acceptance of the bribe by the appellant from the complainant is not mentioned in the F.I.R. and that there is no evidence of the commission of forgery by the appellant in Khasra Girdawari. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that as for allegations of acceptance of bribe, the same are not mentioned in the F.I.R.; that the bribe money was not recovered from him; that there was no raid, proceedings and that since the appellant had made entries in Khasra Girdawaris adversely affecting Muhammad Ibrahim P.W., therefore, he cannot be termed as an independent witness. The evidence given by Altaf Hussain P.W.4 and Rashid Ahmad P.W.5, in the circumstances of, the case, is not confidence inspiring. As for the commission of the offence punishable under sections 218 and 408, P.P.C. I find that there is no direct evidence of the commission of forgery by the appellant. No one saw the appellant removing the leaf or replacing the same. The statement of Khuda Bakhsh, Naib-Office Qanungo, who is not handwriting expert and in whose presence, the documents were not prepared, is of no significance. For all these reasons, I am convinced that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts against the appellant. Giving him the benefit of doubt, he is acquitted of the charges. N.H.Q./M-265/L Appeal accepted.