' The petitioner acquired an interest in a property through an association on cash terms with the auction-purchasers in the year 1967 and that is the subject-matter of dispute in Writ Petition No, 14- R/76 between the parties. Respondent No, 1 is a claimant displaced person and was in possession of one room of the disputed property at the commencement of Settlement operations for which he submitted a C. H. Form on 15-2-1960 and that was entertained by the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner on 16-2-1960.
2. The petitioner after obtaining the documents of title served a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act on the respondent who after coming to know about the transfer of disputed property to the auction-purchasers and through them to the petitioner, filed a revision before the Settlement Commissioner who accepted the same by his order dated 28-1-1968 and held the auction of the property to be void without the disposal of the C.
H. Form of respondent No,
1. The auction was set aside and it was directed that if the respondent was found entitled to the transfer of full flat then the same be given to him and if the flat was further divisible, the portion in his possession be given to him. The auction-purchasers alongwith the petitioner filed Writ Petition No, 473-R/ 1968 which was dismissed by his Lordship Mr. Justice Ghulam Majaddid Mirza on 28-1-1974 upholding the order passed in revision in favour of responder'
No, 1, by the Settlement Commissioner. The various contentions raised in that writ petition were repelled by the learned Judge. This decision was not challenged further in appeal in the High Court or by petition for special leave before the Supreme Court. Thus the order had attained finality.
3. The petitioner, in order to pressurise the respondent, filed a complaint under section 28 of the Act that he had obtained two compensation books in respect of the same property by fraudulent means. The question of maintainability of complaint was brought before the High Court in Criminal Revision No, 450/74 which was disposed of by his Lordship Mr. Justice Aslam Riaz Hussain as he then was, that the complaint could be made by an officer of the Settlement Department only. The petitioner pursued the matter and prevailed upon the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Circle II, Lahore to file a complaint under section 28 of the Act. The complaint was filed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 12-4-1975 and the case was put up for trial in the Court of Ch. Shaukat Ali, Magistrate, 1st Class, Lahore. The prosecution produced ten witnesses and two more were examined as Court-witnesses. The elder brother of the respondent was examined in defence.
The learned Magistrate by his judgment dated 5-11-1967 acquitted the accused who are respondents Nos, 1 and 2 in this criminal revision.
4. In this revision, which was not filed by the complainant but by the petitioner who got the disputed property in the year 1967 through association on cash terms with the auction-purchasers, the first question for consideration is the locus standi of the petitioner to file this criminal revision against the acquittal of the respondents against whom a complaint was made by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Circle II, Lahore under section 28 of the Act on 12-4-1975. The Act itself under which the complaint was filed, had been repealed on 30th June 1974. The very authority under which the complaint was filed was non-existent on 12-4-1975. Also, section 28 of the Act conferred the authority to file a complaint in respect of the offences committed under section 27 of the Act, or an officer appointed under that Act. The authority thus was conferred on a single officer and that could not be other than the Chief Settlement Commissioner who had been given the overall powers of superintendence and control over other officers who would perform duties and functions assigned to them under the Act. No general or special order has been produced in the criminal revision by the petitioner to show that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Circle II, Lahore was the officer authorised under section 28 of the Act by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. In the absence of any material produced in the trial Court or before this Court, it cannot be presumed that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was a competent officer to file the complaint under section 28 of the Act. The authority to file the complaint would not be presumed in the Deputy Settlement Commissioner because he was the lowest officer in the rung and should not be entrusted with the prosecution of claimants for whose benefit A the Act was enacted. The authority, if any, to file the complaint must be presumed in the highest officer responsible for over all control of the settlement operation and payment of compensation to the claimants. Penal provisions in any statute are to be construed strictly and unless the case of the person is completely covered by the clear language of the provisions, no prosecution can be launched against him.
5. The learned counsel appearing in support of this criminal revision has submitted that the complaint was lodged on account of the offence committed under section 27 (b) of the Act, by respondents Nos, 1 and 2. From the examination of the compensation book for which 'A' form was filed by the elder brother of respondent No, 1 at Leiah, District Muzaffargarh, it has been ascertained that the compensation book was prepared jointly in the names of respondent No, 1 and his elder brother on 27-7-1960 and it was signed by the Issuing Officer on 4-11-1960 but there is no indication on the record that it was issued to the claimants or they had received the same at any time before 7-5-1965 when they made an application for the adjustment of the price from the said compensation book. With respect to the compensation book obtained by the petitioner on 'A' form for his share of the claim in 1960 from Lahore that was surrendered on 15-4-1965 by 'W' form on the ground that brother of the respondent had already got prepared a joint compensation book at Leiah, the deferred payment from which had been agreed to be adjusted against the price of the house in possession of their father and transferred to his elder brother initially but by agreement dated 7-5-1960 the respondent had been associated with his brother. Thus no amount of compensation in excess of the entitlement of the respondent and his brother was attempted to be obtained or in fact obtained by the respondent. Clause (b of section 27 is not attracted to a case of bona fide mistake but to an actual act of payment of compensation obtained by the claimant. For these circumstances, the learned Magistrate had observed that it was a crude attempt but no intention to get double payment of compensation and there was n mala fide proved against the respondents. Even the act of making an application on Form 'A' by respondent No, 1 for his share of the claim at Lahore was rectified by surrender of his compensation book obtained from Lahore immediately he came to know of the fact that joint compensation book has already been prepared in his and in the name of his elder brother. Before adjustment From the joint compensation book was requested, the compensation book issued from Lahore had already been surrendered by the respondent. His case was not clearly covered by clause (b) of section 27 of the Act which is to be construed strictly excepting case of bona fide mistake.
6. The other question which is subtle and affects the fate of this criminal revision is the locus standi of the petitioner. He came into contact with the property in dispute between the parties for the first time in the year 1967 through association on cash terms with the auction-purchasers. He was not the person affected in any manner whatsoever by the surrender of compensation book of his own share by respondent No, 1 in the year 1965 to the department before taking benefit of the joint compensation book prepared at Leiah. Being opposite-party to the litigation with the respondent, he was prosecuting the complaint to pressurise the respondent to abandon his claim for the transfer of the property in dispute and could not be considered a man of just character associated with the litigation ensued against the respondent. The petitioner was also not the person who could have filed the criminal revision in case the sanction was not granted by the District Magistrate to file the appeal against acquittal. He is an unconcerned person with the offence alleged to have been committed in the context of sections 27 and 28 of the Act. As such the petitioner has no right to file this Criminal Revision. Also, there is another factor that the writ petition filed by the petitioner and auction purchasers for the second time has been dismissed on merits with which this criminal revision was linked which is also dismissed.