DORAB PATEL, J.-The appellant was appointed as Patwari of village Akbar on 10-8-1980, and one Anwar Hussain admittedly owned some land, in this village. On 30th August 1960, one Qutub Shah appeared with a person claiming to be Anwar Hussain before the appellant and the person claiming to be Anwar Hussain said that he had sold his land to the said Qutub Shah for Rs. 3,000. As the person claiming to be Anwar Hussain was identified as Anwar Hussain by Ghulam Mohammad, the local Lambardar, the appellant made the requisite entry in the village Rozenamcha. But the person claimed to be Anwar Hussain was an imposter, who had taken advantage of the fact that Anwar Hussain was in custody pending investigations in murder case. Anwar Hussain was released in September, 1960 and for the purpose of this appeal, it is sufficient to state that on the basis of Anwar Hussain's evidence, the Tehsildar refused to mutate the alleged sale in Qutub Shah's favour, therefore, in the events that happened, the appellant was tried together with the said Qutub Shah and Ghulam Mohammad under section 477-A of the Pakistan Penal Code. By his judgment dated 16-8-1969, the Special Judge, Sahiwal convicted all the three accused under section 477-A and sentenced them to two years' R. I. Each. All the accused challenged this judgment in an appeal in the High Court at Lahore, but as the appeals were dismissed, they filed petitions for leave in this Court. But its order dated 8-10-1977, this Court dismissed the petition for leave filed by the said Qutub Shah and Ghulam Mohammad, but it granted leave to the appellant, in order to examine the contention that the case against him was one of no evidence.
2. The only point in the appeal is whether there is any evidence in support of the finding of the learned Special Judge that the appellant knew that the person who appeared before him on 11-8- 1960 and claimed to be Anwar Hussain was not Anwar Hussain. In holding that the appellant knew '.
That the person who appeared before him on 11-8-1980 was an imposter and the learned Special Judge observed :- "The contention of Abdul Rehman that he did not know Anwar Hussain previously or that he was in the Jail does appear to be correct. It may be reasonably presumed that as he had been posted in the village or 20 days before the entry was made in the Roznamcha he must have come to know that Anwar Hussain was in Jail in a murder case.
As a result of all that has been said above it is crystal clear that Abdul Rehman Patwari accused had made the false entries Exh. P. B., and D. H. In the Rozenamcha Exh. P. B./1 at the instance of Ghulam Muhammad Lambardar and Qutub Shah accused with the intention to defraud and thereby deprive Anwar Hussain of his land."
Mr. Abdul Rehman took us through the record of the case and submitted that there was no evidence to contradict the statement of the appellant that h had relied on the Lambardar's identification of the alleged Anwar Hussain because be did not know Anwar Hussain, as be had been posted very recently to the village. The submission is correct. Learned counsel for the State feebly submitted that the appellant should have known that the real Anwar Hussain was in custody, because Akbar village was a very small village in which every one knew about his neighbour. No doubt. This was the view taken by the learned Special Judge, but in taking this view, the learned Special Judge substituted evidence by conjecture, and it is significant that even Anwar Hussain did not say that he knew the appellant.
3. Learned counsel for the State then submitted that the appeal was fit to be dismissed, because the conviction was based on the concurrent finding of the two Courts below. The submission is not correct, because we have to observe with regret that the learned Judge of the High Court did not even attempt to examine the question whether there was any evidence to show that the appellant knew Anwar Hussain did/or that he had any means of knowing that the person, who appeared before him on 11-8-1960 was an imposter. Therefore, after hearing the arguments of both the learned counsel, we set aside the conviction of the appellant and allow his appeal. His bail bond shall stand cancelled.