' KAZIM ALI MALIK, J.---Common questions of law and fact are involved in the Writ Petitions Nos.13541, 12862 and 14074 of 2008, I, therefore, propose to dispose them of by this single judgment.
2. Brief facts giving rise to these petitions with a prayer for quashing of F.I.R. No,69 of 2008 registered under sections 420/468/471 P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 at Police Station, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Faisalabad may be given first:-- ' Mukhar Ahmad, petitioner/accused filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the owners of disputed property; namely, Muhammad Saeed and Muhammad Tufail before the Civil Court at Jaranwala, District Faisalabad, with the claim that the aforesaid original owners agreed to sell the disputed property in his favour and then backed out of their commitment. The suit was decreed in favour of Mukhtar Ahmad, accused, on 29-4-1999. Instead of filing an application for execution of the A decree for specific performance of the contract, Mukhtar Ahmad, decree holder/accused, adopted a novel procedure unwarranted in law by approaching Mubarak Ali Farpoqi, PLD Revenue Patwari City Jarranwala, accused/petitioner, to get entered a mutation. The Patwari entered mutation No, 17747 dated 26-5-1999 on the basis of photocopy of above said decree and placed it before Naeem Jannisar, accused Naib Tehsildar, on 30-5-1999, who adjourned the matter till next tour with a direction to put up the mutation with certified copy of the decree. It so happened that custodian of register mutations or someone else drew up sanction order on the mutation on the basis of above said civil court decree over the signature of the Revenue Officer, which he had put under his earlier order of adjournment. In this way Mukhtar Ahmad, accused, got him entered as owner of the disputed property in the Revenue Record.
3. On 16-2-2006, Mukhtar Ahmad, accused got registered a case F.I.R. No,3 under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 with Police Station, ACE, . Faisalabad with an allegation, in brief, that he acquired ownership in the disputed property by means of civil court decree, which was given effect to in the revenue record vide mutation No,17747; that he alienated the disputed property through three registered sale-deeds Nos.763 dated 31-5-1999, 947 dated 29-6-1999 and 948 dated 29-6-1999, which were also incorporated in the revenue record vide mutations No,17856, 17887 and 17784; that Mubarak Ali Farooqi, Revenue Patwari, removed the original mutation No,17747 from the mutation register after receiving Rs,2,00,000 illegal gratification from the original owners of the land and inserted therein another unsanctioned muutation; that he approached the Patwari on 21-9-2000 to obtain a copy of Jamabandi, when it revealed that the mutation had been removed from the mutation register and that on administrative side the Patwari had been found guilty of the offence. The case registered at the instance of Mukhtar Ahmad, accused, was challaned to the Court of learned Special Judge Anti Corruption. The accused Patwari faced trial in that case and was acquitted of the charge as Mukhtar Ahmad opted to turn hostile towards his own case and cause.
4. On 17-9-2008, Muhammad Asif, respondent, who had purchased the disputed land from Mukthar Ahmad, got registered the impugned F.I.R. No,69 of 2008 with an allegation, in brief, that Mukhtar Ahmad deceitfully and fraudulently alienated the disputed property wrongly claiming to be its owner under mutation No, 17747 despite knowing fully that the said mutation had not been sanctioned in his favour. As a result of investigation, the Anti Corruption Establishment have decided to challan the following accused persons:-
(1) Mukhtar Ahmad (petitioner in Writ Petition No,14074 of 2008)
(2) Naeem Jannisar, Naib Tehsildar (petitioner in W.P. No,13541 of 2008)
(3) Mubarak Ali, Revenue Patwari, (petitioner in W.P. No,12862 of 2008)
3(sic). I have heard the learned counsel for parties at length and perused the record very carefully and minutely.
4(sic). Learned counsel for Mubarak Ali Farooqi, Patwari/petitioner, has argued that the revenue official were bound to enter and sanction the mutation in compliance with the Court decree and were/are, therefore, not liable for the charge of forgery, fraud and corruption. It has further been argued that Mukhtar Ahmad, accused, had already prosecuted Mubarak Ali Farooqi, Patwari and the Girdawar for the same offence unsuccessfully and their acquittal by the learned trial Court remained unchallenged and thus stands in the way of Asif, respondent/ complainant, to prosecute them again and that the complainant is not competent to prosecute the petitioners herein in violation of the maxim that no person be vexed twice for the same crime.
5. Learned counsel for Saeed Ahmad, Girdawar/petitioner, in W.P. No,12862 of 2008 has argued that the Girdawar did not contribute towards the alleged manipulation of revenue record as he simply recorded comparison note on the mutations in question.
6. Learned counsel for Naeem Jan Nisar, Naib Tehsildar, argued that the revenue officer did not sanction the mutation No,17747 and that the custodian of mutation register fabricated the sanction order over his signature, which he had put while postponing the mutation proceedings with a direction that certified copy of the decree should be placed on record.
7. In order to arrive at the truth, I requisitioned the original mutation No,17747{{URDU TEXT}}and examined it in the light of conflicting versions of the parties. At one time, Mukhtar Ahmad, accused, prosecuted the Patwari and the Girdawar with an allegation that they removed sanctioned mutation No,17747 from the register of mutations. It is open to naked eye that the mutation No,17747 had not been removed from the 'register nor it was substituted by any other mutation. Now, Mukhtar Ahmad has opted to adopt altogether different stance to the effect that the mutation in question had validly been sanctioned in his favour. The Revenue Officer in his first statement before the investigator supported Mukhtar Ahmad, accused, by saying that he had sanctioned the mutation in his favour. On reconsideration, the revenue officer disowned-his first statement and made another statement with the claim that the sanction order on the mutation had been fabricated. During arguments before this Court, he has chosen to adopt the latter stance. Before adverting to the controversy on its merits, I find it advantageous to bring on record the following facts of the case, which were not in dispute or disputable:--
(i) The property in dispute was owned by Muhammad Saeed and Muhammad Tufail besides other co-sharers.
(ii) Mukhtar Ahmad, accused secured a decree for specific performance of contract touching the disputed property against the aforesaid Muhammad Saeed and Muhammad Tufail from the civil Court at Jarranwala on 29-4-2009.
(iii) Mukhtar Ahmad, accused, did not file execution petition to get executed the decree for specific performance of contract. He directly approached the Patwari/accused with a photocopy of the said decree and got entered mutation No, 17747 in his favour.
(iv) Mukhtar Ahmad,- accused, alienated the disputed property to Muhammad Asif, respondent/complainant and others by means of three registered sale deeds, which were also incorporated in the revenue record by the Patwari and Naib Tehsildar treating Mukhtar Ahmad an owner under the decree and the mutation No,17747.
(v) The judgment debtors/original owners of the land in dispute filed an application under section 12(2) C.P.C. Against the aforesaid decree, which was ultimately allowed and the decree in favour of Mukhtar Ahmad, accused, was set aside. Admittedly, the decree, the very basis of all the transactions, does not hold the field.
8. To start with, I take up the plea of double jeopardy adopted by the Patwari and the Girdawar. This is a matter of record and is manifest from a bare perusal of the F.I.R. No,3 of 2006, lodged at the instance of Mukhtar Ahmad, accused, that the allegation against the Patwari and the Girdawar in that case was that they had removed mutation No,17747 from the register of mutations and inserted another mutation after having received illegal gratification from the original owners Muhammad Saeed and Muhammad Tufail. In the case in hand, the Patwari and the Girdawar are not standing in the dock for said charge. Muhammad Asif, complainant, who purchased the disputed land from Mukhtar Ahmad, accused, has come forward with an allegation that as a matter of fact Mukhtar Ahmad neither acquired ownership in the disputed property nor the mutation No,17747 had been sanctioned in his favour, therefore, he was not competent to alienate the disputed property after receiving its sale price.
' I am not in agreement with the argument of the revenue officials that they were bound to enter and sanction the mutation' on the basis of above said decree. This is an established principle of law subject to no exception that unless and until a decree for specific performance of contract is executed against the judgment debtor, it does not create any right in the subject matter in favour of the decree holder. It was not permissible under the law for the accused Patwari to give effect to the aforesaid decree in the revenue record without an order of the executing court. The accused revenue officials wrongly treated the decree for specific performance of the contract as a declaratory decree in favour of Mukhtar Ahmad. The revenue officials were required to return the decree for specific performance of the contract to the decree holder asking him to approach the executing court for the needful.
9. Naeem Jan Nisar, petitioner/revenue officer made conflicting statements before the Investigating Agency. At one time, he supported the cause of Patwari by saying that he had sanctioned the mutation No,17747. On reconsideration, he backed out of his earlier statement and stated that he did not sanetion the mutation and the sanction order has been forged and fabricated. Although, it is prerogative of the Trial Court to determine the above said question after conducting trial, yet this Court has been left with no other option but to say on the basis of tentative assessm ent of the material that the mutation No,17747 had not been sanctioned by the revenue officer. It is evident from a bare perusal of the original mutation {{URDU TEXT}} that the revenue officer adjourned the matter for next tour, but some one fabricated the sanction order over the signature of the revenue officer, which he had put under the order of adjournment. I exercise a restraint and do not determine as to who manipulated the revenue record. However, I must say that there was no legal justification for the accused Patwari to issue copies of Register Haqdaran Zamin showing Mukhtar Ahmad as owner of the disputed land, on the basis of which he alienated the property to Muhammad Asif, complainant and others vide registered sale-deeds. It would not be out of place to mention here that with active support of the revenue officials, Mukhtar Ahmad, accused, succeeded to show him as owner of the disputed property, which did not vest in him. For the foregoing reasons I am not in agreement with the learned counsel that no offence has been, prima facie, made out against the Petitioners/accused persons. The above-discussed state of record has provided a basis to conclude that prima facie there is sufficient evidence to connect the accused persons/petitioners herein with the charge. The principle of double jeopardy is also of no help to the petitioners because the charge in the case in hand is altogether different from that of earlier one. I, therefore, dismiss all 'the petitions, however, with a clarification that the observations of this Court being the result of tentative assessment of the material would not adversely affect the case and cause of either side at trial.