' MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJUM-UZ-ZAMAN, J.---Appellants were tried by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Camp, Jhang in case F.I.R. No,260 of 1995 for the offence under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. Read with section 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 registered at Police Station Saddar Jhang, who vide judgment, dated 18-9-2003 convicted allthe appellants under section 420, P.P.C. And sentenced to six years' R.I. Each and to pay Rs, 2 lacks cash, or in default whereof to further undergo one year each. Appellants were also convicted under sections 409/468/471, P.P.C. And sentenced to six years' R.I. Each for every offence. Appellants were also convicted under section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced six years' R.I. And to pay Rs, 2 Lacs each in every offence, or in default whereof to further undergo one year's each in every offence. All the appellants were also directed to deposit remaining misappropriated amount i.e,Rs, 3,22,654.36 minus Rs,80,000 already recovered. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
' Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment, appellants filed separate appeals (Cr1. A. No, 1823 of 2003 by Mst. Razia Begum, Crl. A.No,1796 of 2003 by Manzoor Ahmed and Cr1. A. No,1797 of 2003 by lkhlaque Ahmed). All these matters are being disposed of by this single judgment.
2. In brief, the case of the prosecution as penned in the F.I.R. Inthat appellants collusively committed cheating, forgery and criminal breach of trust by preparing the fake -pension case of their co- accused Mst. Razia a bogus teacher and caused a loss to the Government amounting to Rs,3,22,654.36.
3. After the formal investigation, the agency submitted challan before the Trial Court where prosecution produced seven witnesses to prove the charge against the appellants. Mst. Akhtar Begum P.W.1 reiterated his stand as taken by her while lodging the F.I.R. Farooq Junior Clerk P.W. 2 is the person before whom Manzoor made extra-judicial confession. Zafar Iqbal P.W.3 and Zafar Constable P.W.5 are witnesses of recovery of Rs,80,000 which was effected at the instance of Manzoor Ahmed appellant. Aman Ullah, A.S.-I. P.W.4. Muhammad Younas, S.I. P.W. 6 and Muhammad Younas P.W.7 are the Investigating Officers of this case who investigated the case and submitted challan before the Trial Court.
' Learned Trial Court also examined appellants under section 342, Cr.P.C. Who while denying the charges pleaded their innocence.
' The appellants did not appear under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. However, Manzoor appellant produced Muhammad Sadiq D.W.1 in his defence.
' Learned Trial CO-Lift after appraisal of evidence vide judgment,dated 18-9-2003 convicted and sentenced the appellants as narrated earlier.
4. Learned counsel for Manzoor appellant while challenging the impugned judgment submits that there is delay of fourteen days in lodging the F.I.R., complainant of this case Mst. Akhtar Begum P.W.1 who was District Education Officer, Jhang while deposing before the Trial Court made dishonest improvements in order to save her skin and to involve innocent persons. Submits that pension papers qua retirement of Mst. Razia appellant were never signed by AEO which was requirement of the law and the complainant being DEO without complying with legal formalities of her own affixed her signatures on the relevant papers to make out case for retirement and that stand of the complainant that she had signed single document which was presented before her by Manzoor appellant stands belied from the fact that the documents as Annexure-P. 1 to P.7 show the signatures of the complainant as DEO. Further submits that though the complainant while deposing before the Trial Court had stated that she never affixed the signatures on the documents and statedly after preparing false documents i.e, P. 1 to P. 17 the same were placed on record by the appellant but on the other hand, the statement of this witness reveals that she herself took the original file and informed the relevant department for the stoppage of pension papers of Mst. Razia appellant. It is submitted that the consistent result of investigation was that Manzoor appellant had got nothing to do with this fraud and in fact it was complainant (Akhtar Begum P.W.1 DEO, Jhang) who had prepared the documents and embezzled the amount. Submits that this fact is very much clear from the statements of two Investigating Officers i.e, Muhammad Younas, S.I.P.W. 6 and Muhammad Younas, Inspector P.W. 7, that the recovery evidence relied upon by the prosecution to connect the appellant with the commission of this offence is of no value because Rs, 80,000 (case property) were never produced by the appellant and admittedly this amount. Was handed over to the Investigating Officer by the son of the appellant. Learned counsel also submits that after the registration of this case appellant was removed from his service but his appeal was allowed by Punjab Service Tribunal vide order, dated 5-8-2003 and the case was remanded back to the department and till today the inquiry is pending.
' Learned counsel for Mst. Razia Begum appellant submits that she was never posted in Chak No, 32 in the year 1994, she never made any application for her retirement nor documents in question were sent to Handwriting Expert for the report about the genuineness of the signatures on the documents. Submits that appellant till today has not attained the age of superannuation and that she neverwithdrew any amount from the Bank as alleged by the prosecution witnesses.
' Learned counsel for Ikhlaque appellant submits that there is no evidence against the appellant to connect him with the commission of offence except the statement of one defence witness Muhammad Sadiq who had stated that account in the Bank was opened by Ikhlaque in the name of Mst. Razia Begum; that there is no other incriminating material on record to show the involvement of the appellant.
' On the other hand, learned counsel for the State at the very outset submits that there is no evidence against Ikhlaque and he is not in a position to defend the impugned judgment. As far as Manzoor and Razia appellants are concerned, it is submitted that the data available on the record is sufficient to show their involvement; that both of them are the beneficiaries and they have actively participated in the commission of this offence by preparing fake retirement documents and by withdrawal of the amount from the Bank. Leaned counsel frankly conceded that data available on record is sufficient to show that the conduct/behaviour/character of Mst. Akhtar Begum (P.W.1) was not above-board and prima facie she also seems to have involvement in the commission of this offence.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I have observed that there is no direct evidence against Ikhlaque appellant none of the prosecution witnesses had uttered a single word against him. The statement of Muhammad Sadiq D.W.1 (employees of National Bank, Jhang) reveals that account in the name of Mst. Razia appellant was got opened by Ikhlaque appellant but there is no evidence to show that he withdrew any amount from the said account. In this view of the matter, he stands acquitted from the charges, he shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any criminal case.
' As far as Manzoor and Razia Begum appellants are concerned, prima facie the evidence available on the record connects them with the commission of this offence. In my considered, view, it was not possible for both of them to accomplish the mission without the assistance of other officials of the department. Both the Investigating Officer i.e, Muhammad Younas, S.I. P.W. 6 and Muhammad Younas, Inspector P.W.7 during the investigation came to the conclusion that Akhtar Begum complainant (P.W.1) had also participated in the commission of this offence. Though they had opined to treat her as accused but for the reasons best known to the agency this was never done and her (Akhtar Begum's) name was placed in the calendar of witnesses. I do not want tocomment on the factual aspect of the case because it is a fit case for remand and re-investigation to unearth the truth and to put to trial the real culprits. In this view of the matter, while setting aside the impugned judgment, the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court with the direction to send the case to Director, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Jhang for fresh investigation/inquiry to get hold of all the real culprits and submits fresh challan. This exercise shall be completed by the Director ACE within ninety days and after the submission of challan Trial Court shall proceed with the matter expeditiously and conclude the case within six months.
' Since the case has been remanded back to the Trial Court, both the appellants shall be treated as under-trial prisoners. Record of this case reveals that during the trial both the appellants were on bail. Accordingly it is directed that they submit fresh bail bonds before the Trial Court under the same terms and conditions, they were admitted to bail at the time of trial. Disposed of.