' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.--- Instant revision petition has been directed against the judgments, dated 25-6-2007 and 10-7-2007 whereby Ali Akbar, petitioner was convicted and sentenced under section 420, P.P.C. To R.I. For 3 years with a fine of Rs,15,000 or in default thereof to further undergo S.I. For one month by the learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Faisalabad and his appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad respectively.
2. Allegation as per F.I.R. Registered on the written complaint (Exh.P.1) of Ghulam Galani is that his wife Mst. Kishwar Sultana and Mst. Shafiqa real sister of his wife (both died) were deprived from their ancestral property left by their paternal-grandfather Barkat Ali, deceased. Ali Akbar, petitioner by posing to be the sole legal heir got attested Mutation No,28362 with regard to properties left by the deceased by concealing the facts that his two sisters were also the legal heirs of the deceased.
The complainant after coming to know about the Mutation No,28362, approached the. Revenue Courts and ultimately the said mutation was cancelled and. Mutation No,34152 of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner and his aforementioned two sisters. Subsequently, the case in hand was registered against the petitioner under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No,331 of 2003 registered with Police Station Kotwali, District Faisalabad.
3. In order to prove the charge the prosecution examined as many as five P. Ws. Including Ghulam.
Jilani P.W.1, his son Muhammad Arshad Asghar Ali, A.S.-I./P.W.3, Abdul Sattar, Investigating Officer/P.W.4 and Haider Shah, S.-I./P.W.5. Ghulam Jilani, P.W.1 is the complainant who while supporting the contents of the F.I.R. Stated that his wife Mst. Kishwar Sultana and sister-in-law Mst.
Shafiqa along with the petitioner inherited properties left by their deceased paternal-grandfather in the year 1985. He deposed that the petitioner by playing fraud, showing himself to be the sole legal heir of the deceased, got attested Mutation No,28362 and deprived his two sisters from the ancestral properties. He further stated that both the sisters of the appellant challenged the mutation before the Revenue Courts and ultimately the said Mutation No,28362 was cancelled and new mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in which two sisters of the petitioner were also included being legal heirs of Barkat Ali, deceased. He deposed that Property No,P-80 situated in Montgomery Bazar and House No,P-70/4 situated in Chiniot Bazar, Faisalabad were the ancestral properties left by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner as well as his two sisters. He admitted that his wife and sister-in-law never approached to the police for registration of case in their lifetime. He stated that he came to know about the fraud in the year 1997 whereas the mutation in favour of the petitioner was sanctioned on 8-11-1993. He stated that it was not in his knowledge that on 1-11-1993 his wife and sister-in-law executed an agreement in favour of the petitioner to which they transferred their legal shares in favour of the petitioner. He further disclosed that after the decision from the Revenue Courts, Mutation No,34152 has been sanctioned according to which the petitioner and his two sisters were declared the legal heirs of the deceased.
Muhammad Arshad, P.W.2 who is the son of the complainant also deposed on the same lines as stated by the complainant. Abdul Sattar, 5.-I. P.W.4 who was the Investigating Officer of the case stated during investigation he summoned both the parties and the petitioner was found guilty.
During cross-examination he deposed that the petitioner himself did not prepare the mutation rather the petitioner posed himself as sole legal heir of the deceased and got attested mutation of inheritance. After completion of investigation and other formalities the Investigating Officer submitted the challan in Court. The remaining witnesses more or less are of formal nature.
4. Petitioner in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the allegations levelled in the F.I.R.
And took up the plea that his two sisters relinquished their legal share in the ancestral properties through agreement/gift-deed (Exh.D.A.), dated 1-11-1993. He produced Nadeem Arshad as D.W.1 who being the marginal witness of the said agreement supported the version of the petitioner.
Ishtiaq D.W.2 in his statement also stated that two sisters of the petitioner executed agreement of gift in favour of the petitioner with regard to properties situated in Montgomery Bazar and Chiniot Bazar, Faisalabad. He further disclosed that the stamp paper was executed in Katchery Faisalabad and he also put his signature on the said agreement. He admitted that when the agreement of gift was executed both the. Sisters of the appellant were share-holders in the ancestral properties of the deceased.
5. At the commencement of the trial the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 4-5-2004 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the petitioner was held guilty by learned trial Court and was convicted/sentenced as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. He preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad vide impugned judgment. Hence this revision.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record of the trial Court.
Besides the fact that prosccu tion case has been proved to the hilt through consistent statements of P.Ws., made on oath. It could not be denied on behalf of the petitioner that Mutation No,28362 was sanctioned in his presence. It also could not be denied that "pedigreetable" drawn on the mutation in question by the Revenue Officer sanctioning the mutation, was prepared on dictates of the petitioner whose presence has been marked in the order attesting the mutation in question.
Defence plea of the petitioner regarding gift of inherited share by his sisters, namely, Mst. Kishawar Sultana and Mst. Shafiqa as per statements of D.W.1 and D.W.2, is afterthought because this fact should have been reported to the mutation sanctioning authority.
' Even otherwise, this defence plea goes a long way to show that his above named sisters were entitled to inherit the estate of Barkat Ali, their deceased paternal-grandfather. Findings concurrently returned by the two Courts below that petitioner committed cheating as defined by section 415, P.P.C., could not be repelled from the record. I was also not persuaded by the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that entire prosecution evidence and the statements of P. Ws. Having not been put to the petitioner while making his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Would vitiate the offence/trial, as no such intention of the Legislature is made out from the provisions of section 342, Cr.P.C. Similarly, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner about irregularities allegedly committed in the framing of charge by the trial Court are of no avail in view of provisions of section 232, Cr.P.C. Scan of record, evidence on the file and concurrent judgments of two Courts below revealed that commission of offence under section 420, P.P.C. By the petitioner is proved beyond any shadow of doubt and he was rightly found to be guilty, resulting in his conviction which requires no interference by this Court. As far as sentence awarded by the trial Magistrate is concerned that appears to be excessive because Mutation No,28362 has already been reversed by the Court of appeal (A.C./Collector concerned) and his order was maintained by learned Member Board of Revenue. Another mitigating circumstance, in favour of the petitioner is that complainant is the real brother-in-law (Sala) and thus, being closely related to him, the sentence already undergone by him would serve the intends of Legislature and the ends of justice. Petitioner is reported to have already undergone sentence of about six months and being a shopkeeper by profession, has already suffered sufficient monetory loss, as well. According to my estimation purpose of his criminal prosecution has already been served hence his sentence is reduced to the one already undergone but the fine imposed by the trial Court is maintained. This revision petition is dismissed by maintaining the conviction of the petitioner. He be released from jail on payment of fine forthwith if not required in any other case.