1. 'MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, J.--- By 'this common order I intend to dispose of three bail applications, arising out of crime F.I.R. No,5 of 2005 in which the present applicants namely Amanullah Shaikh, Wazir Ali Solangi and Muhammad Ali Memon were nominated by the Police Station A.C.E., Larkana in offence punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 34, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2), Act II, 1947. The bail plea of the applicants was declined by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Larkana vide order, dated 6-6-2005.
2. ' Brief facts of the prosecution case as unfolded in the F.I.R. Are that on 23-5-2005, complainant Mehtab Hussain Butt, Circle Officer, A.C.E., Larkana lodged report on behalf of State at the above said police station which was registered as Crime No,5 of 2005.
3. ' In the report complainant states that in her application Mst. Zarina Qureshi inter alia contended that her husband died on 31-5-2004, but accused namely Muhammad Ayoob Pathan, Muhammad Khalid Qureshi in collusion with Muhammad Ali Memon, City Surveyor, Larkana, Wazir Hussain Solangi, Sub-Registrar, Larkana and Amanullah Shaikh, Stamp Vendor prepared false will of her husband Himayatullh Qureshi. It is further alleged that said will was prepared with the fake signature and fake stamps of Shevak Ram Hindu Advocate and Notary Public, Larkana. Further more accused have also fabricated false Talaqnama of Mst. Zarina. On the basis of false will accused have managed mutation of property City Survey Nos.1693 and 1869 Ward "B" Larkana in favor of Mst. Zubeda daughter of Abdul Hafeez and Mst. Shahida? Accused Amanullah is alleged to have committed forgery of all those documents and the same were registered by Sub-Registrar, Wazir Hussain Solangi and the mutation was made by City Surveyor, Larkana in City Survey record.
4. Since accused Muhammad Ayoob Pathan, Muhammad Khalid Qureshi, Wazir Hussain Solangi, Sub- Registrar, Larkana, Muhammad Ali Memon, City Surveyor, Larkana and Amanullah Shaikh, Stamp Vendor, Larkana in their collusion have illegally transferred the property of Mst. Zarina Qureshi in favor of Zubeda and Mst. Shahida, as such criminal case has been registered against them.
5. ' Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that there is inordinate delay of about two years in lodging the F.I.R. And that no plausible explanation has been offered. It has further been contended that . Sections 467, 468, 471, 477-A read with section 34, P.P.C. Are non-cognizable and sections 471, and 477-A, P.P.C. Are bailable while sections 5(2), Act-II of 1947 is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or fine or with both. It has further been contended by the learned counsel that said applicant namely Mst. Zarina Begum filed a direct complaint in the trial Court wherein she has given same facts as that of instant F.I.R. Which was forwarded to the Circle Officer, A.C.E., Larkana by the trial Court and the Circle Officer recorded the statements of complainant Mst. Zarina, her witnesses and the accused persons wherein it was held that allegations of complainant Mst. Zarina contained in the direct complaint could not be proved against the accused persons and it was further added in the enquiry report that accused persons may kindly be discharged. Lastly learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the cases of Saeed Ahmed v. The State 1996 SCM R 1132, Chaudhry Muhammad Aslam v. The State 1992 M LD 880 and one unreported case of Muhammad Hassan v. The State being Criminal Bail Application No,145 of 2001.
6. ' Mr. Muhammad Bachal Tonyo learned Additional Advocate-General concedes to the grant of bail on the ground that there is delay of two years in lodging of the F.I.R. And that no plausible A explanation has been offered and further learned Additional Advocate-General has contended that the case is not covered under section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
7. ' I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and gone through the material placed on record.
8. ' Since there is delay of two years in lodging the F.I.R. And that no plausible explanation has been given. Most of the sections applied in this case are non-cognizable and some of them are bailable, only section 5(2), Act-II of 1947 is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or fine or with both it also does not come under B the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
9. Here I would like to cite the operative part of the unreported authority being Criminal Bail Application No,145 of 2001 (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants in which my learned brother Amir Hani Muslim, J. In the identical case while sitting at Hyderabad Circuit Court has observed as under:- "It has been noticed during hearing that the Anti-Corruption Police who has authority under law to prosecute the Revenue Officers subject to sanction. By the administrative head are exceeding their authority by holding inquiries on anonymous applications and on spy reports. The law does not authorize Anti-Corruption Police to entertain any application of any private person in respect of private land. If a complaint of a private person pertains to an entry of land, which is not owned by the Government, is allowed to be entertained, it would amount to usurping the powers of Revenue Authorities provided under the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967. The officer of the Anti-Corruption can only take cognizance in those matters in which the Government land is involved and they do not have the authority to determine dispute in regard to entries pertaining to private lands nor the law authorize them to entertain an complaint in regard to title dispute between the private parties. The authority of Anti-Corruption Police is confined to investigate into the entries kept in respect of Government lands and dispute in regard to the private lands are subject to jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities and/or of the Civil Courts.
10. ' In future the Anti-Corruption Police is directed to stay its hands while entertaining complaints of private persons in regard to any entry in Revenue Record belonging to the private person. In future any cognizance by the Anti-Corruption Police "over private disputes would expose him to criminal prosecution for abusing their powers. However, they can entertain complaints in respect of Government lands subject to sanction by the administrative head of the Revenue Department or by the Chief Secretary, Sindh as the case may be."
11. ' Consequently, looking to the above legal position and coupled with no objection raised by learned Additional Advocate-General bail is granted to all the three applicants namely Amanullah Shaikh, Wazir Ali Solangi and Muhammad Ali Memon provided they furnish solvent surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court.
12. 'Criminal Bail Applications Nos.S-405 of 2005, 406 of 2005 and 407 of 2005 stand disposed of.