1969 P Cr (PLP)

SAJJAD AHMAD, J

The petitioner who was a Patwari was found guilty by the Special Judge, Lyallpur under sections 409 and 468, P. P. C. and sentenced to 6 months' R. I., and a fine of Rs. 300 or in default one month's R. I. on the first count and to 3 months' R. I., on the second‑the sentences to run concurrently. An appeal by the petitioner challenging his convictions and sentences was filed in the High Court and the State filed a revision petition for enhancement of the sentences. A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal but accepted the State's revision application and enhanced the petitioner's sentence under section 409, P. P. C. to 9 months' R. I. and under section 468, P. P. C. to 6 months' R. I.‑both to run concurrently. The case against the petitioner, as accepted by the Courts below is that as a Patwari of Chak No. 287/G. B., Tehsil Toba Tek Singh, the petitioner had realized a sum of Rs. 287‑14‑0 as arrears of land revenue from one Khizar Hayat against a receipt which was duly executed by him but the money instead of being deposited in the treasury was misappropriated. The defence of the petitioner was that he did realize the money but he had paid it to one Ahmad Khan, Karinda of the Lambardar named Hakam Khan. This defence was obviously false as the afore mentioned Ahmad Khan was found to have died 8 or 9 years before the offences came to light. On the charge of forgery the petitioner was found to have changed the figure Rs. 7 57 into Rs. 287 57 in one of the triplicate copies of the challan which was prepared in the office for deposit of the land revenue in question. The copy which was in possession of the depositor was found to be tampered with as it did not tally with the original which was retained in the office nor with the other copy which was kept by the Wasil Baqi Nawis. The copy produced by the petitioner to prove his plea of deposit of the embezzelled amount in the treasury which was clearly a second thought clearly contained a forged interpola tion which did not exist in the other two copies of the relevant challan. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner on facts but he has submitted that the trial of the petitioner for both the offences at one trial was illegal which has vitiated the entire proceedings as each offence was independent of the other complete by itself. Apart from the fact that this objection was not taken by the petitioner at any stage of the trial and no prejudice was caused to him, we do not see any substance in it. The two offences are obviously linked together, the second having been committed to cover the first. Both were complementary to each other and therefore fell in the same series of acts which constituted two different offences; We dismiss the petition. Leave refused.