1992 P Cr (PLP)

Lai Din Rafique for the State. Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1991. This judgment shall deal with and dispose of three appeals mentioned in the title, all arising out of the judgment, dated 21‑3‑1987, by‑ which the learned Special Judge Anti‑Corruption (Provincial) Sargodha, convicting the three appellants under section 468 read with section 34, P.P.C. sentenced them to three months R.I. and a fine of Rs.10,000 each or in default of its payment to further undergo three months R.I. Noor Din co‑accused was, however, acquitted.

2. The facts of the case are that Muhammad Anwar appellant had purchased a piece of land measuring 7 marlas comprised in Khasra No.148/101 situated in the area of village Shorkot Shamali, vide registered sale‑deed dated 27‑10‑1981 from Jafar Ali appellant for a sum of Rs.18,000 on the basis of `Farad Malqiat' issued by Nisar Ali Patwari. On 21‑2‑1982 Qadir Din (P.W.7) lodged a complaint at Police Station, Shorkot, vide F.I.R.No.42/82, alleging therein that on 24‑9‑1981 Muhammad Anwar appellant had forcibly pushed him out of small hut situated in the disputed land on the strengthen of a forged document and took forcible possession thereof. According to him, on his complaint Assistant Commissioner, Shorkot, eras holding an enquiry into his allegations and he had been directed by him to lodge a complaint with the police. On the basis of this report, originally a case under section 448 P.P.C. was registered against Muhammad Anwar appellant and subsequently on 5‑3‑1982 sections 468 and 471, P.P.C. were added and other accused were arraigned.

3. On the completion of investigation all the three appellants, including Noor Din Petition Writer, were sent up for trial to the Court of Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Sargodha.

4. On the commencement of trial, the appellants and their acquitted accused were charged under section 468/34, P.P.C. and on their pleading not guilty the prosecution produced as many as 15 witnesses.

5. On the conclusion of the trial, the appellants were convicted and sentenced in the manner aforesaid and they came up in appeal to this Court.

6. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that Jaffar Ali appellant was one of the co‑owners in the joint land, of which the disputed property formed part, and he being its lawful owner, was fully competent to sell it in favour of Muhammad Anwar appellant who lawfully purchased it for consideration. According to the learned counsel, Nisar Ali Patwari appellant, had issued correct copy of the Jamabandi, on the basis of which the sale‑deed was registered in favour of Muhammad Anwar appellant by the Sub‑Registrar. He contends that Qadir Din complainant was in an unlawful possession of a piece of land and he had no right or' entitlement to stay on it and on the basis of his false allegations, a case was registered and the appellants were prosecuted, convicted and sentenced. He submits that it was rather the prosecution which made interpolation in the revenue record and produced a forged copy of the Jamabandi, on the basis of which the appellants were prosecuted. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel, besides refering to the copy of the mutation, bas also shown .me the copy of the Jamabandi of 1976‑77 in which Jaffar Ali appellant is clearly mentioned as one of the owners of the disputed Khata No.310/297, in which the but of Qadir Din was situated.

7. Unfortunately due to the lack of proper attention on the part of the learned defence counsel, this document could not be brought on the record and the learned trial Judge was probably misled by some forged entries of the revenue record brought on the record by the prosecution. This being so, the appeal is accepted, the conviction and sentences of the appellants are set aside and they all are acquitted. H.B.T./M‑158/L Appeal accepted.