1985 P Cr (PLP)

Date of hearing: 28th January, 1985. This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Lahore whereby he on 18‑9‑1978 convicted Nazeer Ahmed appellant under section 468/109, P.P.C. and sentenced him to one year R.I. and a fine of Rs.500 in default thereof further R.I. for two months.

2. The prosecution case was that the appellant and his father took part in the auction of Plot No. 4/1‑A at Sialkot. The auction was held by the Settlement Department and last bid of Rs.3,250 for the said plot was accepted and approved in favour of the appellant but subsequently with the connivance and the abetment of the two co‑accused, number of the Plot i.e. 4/1‑A was cut and instead number 3/72 was written which was again changed to number 3/71 to provide wrongful gain to the appellant by making forged and fake entries in the bid sheet.

3. On 4‑7‑1973 Rehmat Ali filed complaint against Nazeer Ahmed appellant, Muhammad Shafique and Muhammad Islam Clerks Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sialkot before Senior Special Judge, Anti -Corruption, Sialkot who entrusted the complaint to the learned Special Judge. The trial Court summoned the accused therein. The concerned authority refused sanction for the prosecution of Muhammad Islam whereas Muhammad Shafique was declared absconder.

4. The appellant denied the allegations and claimed to be tried. To prove its case prosecution examined three witnesses. Muhammad Salim Adil P.W.1 stated that out of Property No. 3/9/70, Sialkot, House No. 3/70 was allotted to Rehmat Ali complainant and P.T.O. Exh. P.W.1/A was issued on 3‑7‑1960 and that this property was never put to auction. The witness further stated that Property No. 3/71 was also not auctioned. He further stated that according to bid sheet dated 13‑5‑1960 Exh. P.W. I/C the reserve price of Plot No. 4/1‑A was Rs. 400 which was later on scored and Rs. 700 was inserted and plot No. was also scored off and 3/70 was written and again it was changed to 3/71. Rehmat Ali P.W.3 and Abdul Aziz P.W.2 supported the allegations against the appellant and his co‑accused.

5. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied all incriminating circumstances. In defence he did not produce any evidence.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is no direct evidence of the forgery of the number of the property; that no handwriting expert was produced and that there is nothing on record to show that the alteration was made at the instance of the appellant. Conversely the learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the trial Court.

7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that there is no direct evidence of the forgery or alteration /change of the number of property by the appellant; that there is no evidence of any conspiracy between the appellant and his co‑accused and that the only circumstance against the appellant is that he was the beneficiary. To my mind this circumstance may create suspicions against him but suspicions after all are suspicions and do not take place of legal proof and as such it would be highly unsafe to sustain conviction of the appellant on the evidence produced by the prosecution.

8. For what has been stated above, giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charge. S. G. D. Acquittal ordered.