' BASHIR A. MUJAHID, J.---The appellant has challenged judgment dated 17-7-2001 passed by the special Judge Anti-Corruption Lahore whereby while allowing application of respondents. Nos.1 to 11 under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. They were acquitted in case F.I.R. No,60/95 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 109, 218, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 registered at P.S. ACE, Lahore.
2. The precise allegation against the respondents was that one Chiragh Din was allotted land measuring 4 Kanals 4 Marlas in the year 1960 by the Settlement Department. Out of which 14 Marlas was acquired by the Government and 3 Kanals 10 Marlas was sold by Chiragh Din through registered sale-deed dated 17-4-1965 and mutation No,887 dated 1-12-1966 was also attested on the basis of sale-deed, and the accused persons in connivance of the Revenue Staff changed the figure in the audit as well as in the revenue record and succeeded to show that the land transferred was 4 Kanals 14 Marlas and the legal heirs of Chiragh Din fraudulently disposed of the land in question which was already acquired by the Government. The revenue staff with mala fide intention made `tatima' of Khasra No,415. Anayat Ali son of Boota who had purchased 3 Kanals 10 Marlas from Chiragh Din further sold his entire land to different persons and the land measuring 1 Kanals 6 Marlas belonging to the Government had become part of public road and the land to the extent of 10 Marlas was wrongly shown as `Ghair Mumkin Sarak" in the name of Chiragh Din despite the fact that he was no more owner of the land in the village and the mutation No,2585 got sanctioned on 21-10-1995 about the sale of land of 10 Marlas in Khasra No,1617/415 belonging to the Government was result of fraud and forgery in collusion with revenue staff and Government was deprived of 10 Marlas of the land.
3. After registration of the case challan against the respondents was submitted. The accused moved application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. On 13-7-2000 for acquittal which was allowed on 17-7-2000 through the impugned judgment.
4. The appellant being complainant has filed this appeal and has argued that the trial Court had no jurisdiction under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. And has wrongly exercised the same and during the inquiry conducted at different levels fraud was found having been committed by the respondents and the land 14 Marlas land acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector was not mutated in the revenue record and 10 Marlas was wrongly shown as `Ghair Mumkin Road' in the name of Chiragh Din, therefore, the respondent/accused were guilty of usurping the Government land and without recording evidence they were not entitled for acquittal.
5. The appeal has been opposed by learned counsel for the respondents who has supported the impugned judgment.
6. I have given due consideration to the contentions raised at the bar and perused the record.
7. Admittedly, the land was sold by the legal heirs of the deceased Chiragh Din through attested sale-deed which was on the basis of relevant revenue record. The sale-deed executed by the legal heirs of the deceased in the year 1996 or the mutation attested on the basis of sale-deed has not been challenged at any forum and are still intact. Nothing has been brought on record that who and when committed the forgery. No Mensrea had been alleged against the legal heirs of the .Deceased Chiragh Din. The time, date, month or the year about commission of crime has not been mentioned in the F.I.R. Or in the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. The civil suit filed by the legal heir of Chiragh Din deceased seeking declaration of title had A been decreed in their favour. The land was allotted more than 40 years ago. No explanation has been furnished by the complainant as how, when and who committed the offence. The learned trial Court in para-6 of the impugned judgment has rightly observed that the question as to how much land was allotted to Chiragh Din and whether his legal heirs and any title over 10 Marlas of land and whether Khurram Latif and Farrukh Latif are bona fide purchaser of land or not in matter of civil nature and cannot be settled in criminal proceedings. The petition of the respondents has been allowed on cogent reasons. I do not find the impugned judgment perverse, illegal warranting interference, therefore, the appeal is dismissed.