' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment, dated 11th July, 2003 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby Criminal Appeal filed by petitioner along with co-accused has been dismissed, however, sentence awarded to him by the trial Court was reduced to the period already undergone by him.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that in pursuance of a case registered on the complaint of Mazhar Ali (complainant), Assistant Commissioner, Bhalwal, on the allegation that Muhammad Afzal along with co-accused fraudulently got transferred land measuring 123/4 Kanals belonging to the complainant in his name, petitioner along with other accused was charged under sections 419/468/34, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act No,II of 1947.
Learned trial Court, on completion of trial, found him guilty along with other co-accused, and vide judgment, dated 6th March, 2000 sentenced him as under:--- Under Section 419/34, P.P.C.Sentenced to undergo, rigorous imprisonment for four years with fine of Rs,10,000 each or in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months each.
Under section 468/34, P.P.C.
Read with section 5(2) ofSentenced to undergo R.I. For three years each and fine of Rs,5,000 each or in default whereof to further undergo the Prevention of Corruption Act No. II of 1947.simple imprisonment for three months each. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
Was also extended to him.
3. Being aggrieved from the judgment of the trial Court, petitioner along with co-accused preferred Criminal Appeal before the High Court, which has been rejected, however, sentence awarded to him by the trial Court was reduced to the period already undergone by them and the sentence of fine was reduced to half. As such instant petition for leave to appeal has been filed by the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner contended that prosecution has failed to establish guilt against the convict-petitioner. Besides it, he has entered the mutation in the Revenue Record without any ulterior motive on the basis of identification of the co-sharer of the village.
5. The contention so raised by the learned counsel has been examined carefully in light of the available record. It is an admitted fact that complainant Mazhar Ali (late) was recorded as owner of the agriculture land measuring 123/4 Kanals situated in Mouza Chiba Purana, out of which 60/4 Kanals was mutated in favour of Muhammad Iqbal in his absence vide Mutation No,3676.
Subsequently, when petitioner came to know about fraudulent transfer of the property from his name in favour of Muhammad Iqbal, the Revenue Authorities conducted inquiry and allegations of the complainant were found to be correct, therefore, accordingly, petitioner along with others was sent up to face trial. The prosecution produced overwhelming incriminating evidence to establish accusation against him. On having appreciated the same, learned trial Court concluded that the fraud has been committed with the complainant and the petitioner being `Patwari' had allegedly transferred his land on the name of Muhammad Iqbal.
6. It may be noted that petitioner himself has not denied this fact but his case is that he personally did not know to the complainant Mazhar Ali (late), therefore, in good faith on the identification of the other co-sharer of the area, he entered the disputed mutation entry. Learned trial Court has considered the evidence produced by the prosecution in depth by following the principles of appreciation of evidence and ultimately found him guilty for the commission of the offence. As far as the judgment of the trial Court is concerned, it does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Similarly, the High Court has also examined the prosecution case thoroughly and rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty for the commission of the offence, A but after taking into consideration all attending aspects of the case, particularly that offence of fraud has been committed in the year of 1987 and the judgment was pronounced on 6th March, 2000, whereas the appeals of the accused have been decided by the High Court on 11th July, 2003 and during this period accused persons remained in custody reduced the sentence to the period which they had already undergone. Actually in this manner considerable relief has already been given to the petitioner, therefore, for this added reason as well no interference is called for by this Court and the impugned judgment is maintained being unexceptionable.
' Thus for the foregoing reasons, petition is dismissed and leave declined.