1997 PLP 1187 (MLD)

Malik Haider Usman, Addl. A.‑G. for Respondents Nos. l and

2. Respondent No:3 (absent). Date of hearing: 16th May, 1995. Muhammad Nasir Khan and his brothers purchased 183 Kanais 7 Malras of land from the heirs of Malik Naseer Khan namely Mst. Sarwar Mai (widow); Dalil Khan, Jahan Khan, Muhammad Ramzan, Muhammad Ajmal and Muhammad Aslam (sons): Mst. Shamim Mai, Mst. Naseem Mai and Mst.Perveen Mai (daughters) evidenced through sale‑deed dated 4‑9‑1984 in consideration for an amount of Rs. 11,50,

000. Thereafter Mutation No.42 was sanctioned on 4‑10‑1984 regarding the aforesaid sale. Of his own accord Sakhawat Ali Patwari submitted a report on 7‑8‑1988 to the Circle Girdawar for the review of the sale mutation. The ground mentioned by him was that there were no owners by the names of Muhammad Ajmal and Mst. Perveen Mai and that Ajmal Naseer son and Sajida Naseer daughter of Malik Naseer Khan were recorded as owners in the revenue record. He proposed that Mutation No.42 may be reviewed and the shares of Ajmal Naseer and Mst. Sajida Naseer may be excluded therefrom. Malik Feroze Khan, Girdawar, Faqir Muhammad Naib Tehsildar (Colony), Tehsildar, Multan and Assistant Commissioner, Multan supported and approved the said move to the District Collector, Multan who vide his order, dated 23‑8‑1988 granted the permission for review of the aforesaid mutation. On 13‑9‑1988 aforesaid Mutation No.42 sanctioned on 4‑10‑1984 was cancelled in toto.

2. Muhammad Nasir Khan made a written complaint to the Additional Director Anti‑Corruption, Multan wherein he alleged that the Patwari, Girdawar and the Naib‑Tehsildar had, in collusion with the vendors and after receiving bribe from them, got the sale mutation unlawfully cancelled. On these allegations a case was registered with Anti‑Corruption Establishment, Multan at F.I.R. No.19, dated 17‑4‑1990 under sections 109, 468, 420, 467/471, P.P.C. and under section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, against Ajmal Naseer and Mst. Sajida Naseer petitioners as well as against Faqir Muhammad, Naib‑Tehsildar, Malik Feroze Khan, Girdawar, Sakhawat Ali, Patwari and others.

3. Through this writ petition both Ajmal Naseer and Mst. Sajida Naseer have sought the quashment of the aforesaid criminal case registered against them.

4. The Additional Director Anti‑Corruption, Multan Region. Multan/respondent No.?. submitted the comments wherein it has been expressed that on the basis of the statements of the complainant and P.Ws. and plea of the accused and relevant revenue record the challan against Haji Muhammad, Patwari, Ghulam Nabi, Girdawar, Ajmal Naseer and Mst. Sajida Naseer has been approved by the competent authority. It is added that against other Revenue officers/officials no evidence has come on record against whom the case has been dropped.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Advocate‑General and gone through the record brought by Mr. Ghulam Farid. Inspector, Anti‑Corruption Establishment, Multan. A perusal of the challan filed brought by the Police Officer has made out that no material is annexed therewith to establish that the vendors namely Aimal Naseer and Mst. Sajida Naseer petitioners made the collusion with the revenue staff and paid the amount of bribe. It is the admitted position that Sakhawat Ali, Patwari of his own submitted a report to the Circle Girdawar for the review of the sale mutation and that no application was filed by the petitioners before any Revenue Authority in the matter. An area of 184 Kanals and 7 Marlas of land was sold by the heirs of Malik Naseer Khan namely Mst. Sarwar Mai (widow); Dalil Khan. Jahan Khan, Muhammad Ramzan, Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Ajmal (Ajmal Naseer) sons and Mst. Naseem Mai, Mst. Shamim Mai and Mst. Perveen Mai (Mst, Sajida Naseer) daughters in favour of Muhammad Asif, Muhammad Nasir (complainant), Muhammad Aqil, Muhammad Akmal and Muhammad Ajmal son of Ashiq Muhammad in equal shares In the sold area the share of Ajmal Naseer is 24 Kanals and 16 Marlas while that of Mst. Sajida Naseer is 12 Kanals and 8 Marlas. The aforesaid five vendees purchased that land and the share of Muhammad Nasir complainant in the aforesaid property of both the petitioners comes to about 7 Kanals and 8 Marlas. The only fact that of Ajmal Naseer and Sajida Naseer were not correctly mentioned in the sale deed which were entered as Muhammad Ajmal and Mst. Perveen Mai respectively is not enough for the prosecution of these two persons whose e respective date of birth is 1‑1‑1968 and 2‑2‑1970. The mutation was cancelled on 13‑9‑1988 and keeping in view the aforesaid respective date of birth of both the petitioners, on the basis of mere conjectures and surmises, it cannot be held that they forged the documents and afterwards paid the bribe to the revenue staff. The present position is that whole of the land is with the vendees including Muhammad Nasir complainant who are the owners of the same. It can safely be held that the petitioners cannot be held liable for the alleged offences mentioned in F.I.R. No.19, dated 17‑4‑1990 sought to be quashed. I, therefore, do not agree with the learned Additional Advocate‑General who canvassed before me that in view of the completion of the investigation mid preparation of the challan the competent Court may decide the fate of the petitioners. In this respect I am tempted to express that in view of the fact that such matters are disposed of with considerable delay by the subordinate Courts and sword of criminal litigation may not be allowed to hang upon the heads of the petitioners who are young persons and out of whom one is an unmarried female especially when the circumstances and analysis of the matter justify the quashment of the F.I.R.

6. I, therefore, accept this petition and quash F.I.R. No. 19, dated 17‑4‑1990 registered at Police Station Anti‑Corruption Establishment, Multan to the extent of Ajmal Naseer and Mst. Sajida Naseer petitioners. With respect to the remaining accused the State may proceed in accordance with law. N.H.Q./A‑871/L F.I.R. quashed.