Sardar Muhammad appellant, at one time, a Patwari of village Taqipur in Tehsil and District Lahore, was sent up along with Umaid Khan appellant, under sections 461, 467 and 471, P. P. C. Read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. They were tried before the Special Judge, found guilty, convicted and sentenced. The appellant Sardar Muhammad Patwari was convicted under sec--tions 218, 468/34, 420/34. P. P. C. Read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment for each offence and a fine of Rs. 5,000 or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a year more. Umaid Khan appellant was convicted of abetting the offence under section 218. P. P. C. And of offences under sections 468/34, 420/34, P. P.
C. And was sentenced to the same term of imprisonment and fine. A portion of the fine, i.e. a sum of Rs. 15,000 is required to be paid to the complainant Lt.-Col. Umar (P. W. 1) as com--pensation for the amount that he had paid.
2. The case of the prosecution briefly was that in the first half of the year 1971, Lt.-Col. Umar (P. W. 1) was approached by Sardar Muhammad appellant in the Company of Umaid Khan and others and it was disclosed to him that Umaid Khan was the confirmed allottee of agricultural land and was ready to sell it to a willing purchaser and Sardar Muhammad appellant being the Patwari of the Halqa in which land was situate was well-equipped to certify the ownership and also the quality of the land which was to be sold. Lt.-Col. Umar (P. W. 1) was supplied a copy of the RL. 11 (Exh. P. W. 1/A) bearing the date 9th July, 1970 by the Patwari Sardar Muhammad appellant, who according to the complainant, himself prepared it in his presence as a proof of the allotment of land to Umaid Khan appellant. Similar was the representation by Umaid Khan appellant as well. Subsequently, these two produced the documents agreement of sale (Exh. P. W. 1/B) and affidavit (Exh. P. W. 1/C) of Umaid Khan, the stamp papers for which were purchased on 29th March, 1971. It was got written from Abdus Salam (P. W. 4) Petition-writer and executed on 30th March, 1971. These documents were also produced before the Lt.-Col. Umar (P. W. 1) in order to satisfy him with regard to the genuineness of the sale. On his insistence a mutation (Exh. P. W. 5/A) was also entered by Sardar Muhammad appellant, who then handed over the possession of the plot by its demarcation. The complainant installed a tube-well, spent on levelling and it is stated by him that in all Rs. 10,000 were spent by him. However, when he wanted to complete the transaction of sale and to get authenticated revenue papers he was informed that Umaid Khan appellant was not an owner in the revenue estate. The number of the Khata and the documents executed shown or delivered to the complainant were all factually incorrect and bore no resemblance to facts as existing in the record. On this Lt.--Col. Umar (P. W. 1) first approached Sardar Muhammad appellant who, it is said.
In the presence of Major Altaf Hussain (P. W. 2) and M. A. Waheed (P. W. 3) admitted his fault and was willing to compensate the complainant but did not do so. Thereupon Lt.-Col. Umar (P. W. 1) got a report drafted and sent it to the police station on which a case was registered. The Superintendent of Police then moved Deputy Commis--sioner who was held to be the competent authority for Sardar Muhammad appellant informing him of the case' and seeking sanction and a draft sanction order was also sent with that report. The sanction was ultimately granted by the Assistant Commissioner who by then had become the competent authority for granting such a sanction. The prosecution was ultimately launched.
3. The plea of the appellant Sardar Muhammad before the Special Judge was that he had played no role in arranging the sale, had not subscribed to any one of the documents andthat certain persons Bashir and Shafiq had been negotiating such transactions on behalf of the complainant and the complainant was aggrieved by their conduct and had falsely implicated him. The Handwriting Expert Mr. Qamar Ahmad Bhatti (P. W. 7) had identified the writing of Sardar Muhammad appellant on the affidavit and agreement of sale executed by Umaid Khan appellant.
This appellant denied having signed those documents. He produced a witness in defence, Muhammad Nawaz, who stated how on different occasions Lt.-Col. Umar (P. W. 1) had been negotiating with Shafiq and Bashir regarding purchase of land when Sardar Muhammad appellant was nowhere near.
4. As regards Umaid Khan appellant, he stated that he had been a Hawaldar in the Army in 1960 and at that time he had refused a request made by the complainant on legitimate grounds but the complai--nant felt offended and had in diverse manners thereafter been interfering with the rights of the appellant in the allotment of land and his dealings with various officers including the Border Area Allotment Committee in the matter of allotment. He also produced one witness in defence Qadir Bakhsh, who claimed to have interceded on behalf of this appellant and requested the complainant not to bother him or deal with him unfairly.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued this appeal at great length but in substance the grounds are mainly three. Firstly, it is stated that the sanction granted by the Assistant Commissioner the competent authority for Sardar Muhammad appellant, does not satisfy the requirements of the law inasmuch as it is -mechanical, without application of the mind- as a draft sanction order was sent by the Superintendent of Police and it was returned signed without any modifica--tion at all for making this statement reliance is placed on Gokulchand Dwarkadas Mararka v. The King (P D 1948 P C) and the case of Abdur Rashid v. The State (D 1960 Kar. 25l).
Secondly, it is urged that the prosecution has failed to prove its -case because the Girdawar Qanungo Muhammad Aslam (P. W. 5) has stated that the copy of the mutation (Exh. P. W. 5/A) was prepared by Muhammad Latif Patwari during his short absence from the Halqa and not by Sardar Muhammad appellant to whom this document is attributed. Thirdly, it is stated that the punishment awarded is excessive.
6. In the case of Gokulchand, the sanction was granted by reference to the law and there was nothing either in the sanction granted or in the other material appearing on the record that such a sanction had been accorded after taking into consideration the facts constituting the offence. The law laid down in that case is that facts constituting the offence have to be taken into consideration by the sanctioning authority and if there is nothing in the sanction order to disclose so then extraneous evidence must be on record to suggest that the facts were placed before the sanction- -ing authority before it accorded sanction. The sanction order according to this decision; is required to be based on facts constituting the offence and by reference to it and not by reference to the law violated or the specific provisions whose contravention is alleged and that a defect in sanction was not curable and that sanction could be refused on political or economic grounds as well.
7. The decision in Abdur Rashid's case follows the earlier decision of the Privy Council and it was held that there was nothing to show that the papers were put up before the sanctioning authority, that he was aware of the issues involved and that there were certain factual mistakes with regard to the amount and the inference was drawn by the Court that a pro forma sanction was sent which was signed without applying the mind.
8. There are three distinguishing features of the case in hand. Firstly, the request made by the 'prosecuting agency for obtaining the sanction for prosecution was on the statement of facts as full and complete as one can -expect. It is extending over one and a half typed page. There was a draft sanction order which was sent with it and even that draft sanction order contained the material facts of the case constituting the allegation of the offence. Therefore, the addressee could not, if he went through those facts, be unaware of the allegations and the circumstances, the offence alleged to be committed and the nature of the prosecution of which sanction was sought.
The cases referred to by the learned counsel only require that the constituents of the allegations should be fully, completely' and substantially disclosed to the sanctioning authority so that it may' be able to form its independent view as to the matter and all these factors which are required to be taken into consideration, of policy as well as on merits, should be taken into consideration.
Secondly, it is to be noted that the sanction was sought from the Deputy Commissioner but it was not the Deputy Commissioner who gave the sanction but it ultimately passed down to the Assistant Commissioner who had by then become the competent authority, for granting such a sanction. It is, therefore, clear that the matter has not received a mechanical treatment offensive to the power that has been entrusted to the sanctioning authority. A mechanical course would have been when the addressee on receipt of it had, as well signed the pro forma of sanction and returned it. Such was not the case. Thirdly, there are certain consequential amendments made in the draft. The sanctioning authority's designation has been changed and so is the content with regard to reference of the authority inside the body of the order. All this well show that an authority competent has not acted ire that mechanical fashion as may be violative of the requirements of they law.
9. As regards the merits of the case, there are three witnesses, namely, Lt -Col. Umar (P. W. 1), Major Aitaf Hussain (P. W. 2) and M. A. Waheed (P. W. 3) who are directly involved in the affairs, the first, being the complainant, the other two being the colleagues who were associated in the matter as soon as the complainant was in trouble over the transaction. In spite of all the efforts made, there is no enmity made out against any of these. As a matter of fact, the defence version with regard to the inimical disposition of the complainant was never put-across to any of these witnesses in cross-examination. They were the affected persons or close to the persons affected and therefore, were the natural witnesses in the circumstances. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with their statements either. Abdus Salam Petition --writer (P. W. 4) is yet another witness, who has stated about the execution of the affidavit by Umaid Khan appellant. Much reliance has been placed on the statement of Muhammad Aslam Girdawar Qanungo, who stated that he took over charge from Sardar Muhammad appellant in 1971 in the month of August. However, the document in respect of which he reports (Exh. P. W. 5/A) is dated 23rd June, 1971 i.e. Long before he had taken over charge.
Going by the date this witness could not say what is implied from his statement. Similarly, there is no point of confrontation with the police statement because copy was asked for from him when he held the charge. He found the mutation (Exh. PW 5/A) pending when he took over charge. He reported on it. He was a witness mainly to identify the signature of Sardar Muhammad appellant being in the same department and having known the writing and he had proved the incriminating documents whose execution is attributed to Sardar Muhammad appellant. The corroborative evidence in respect of identity of the writing of Sardar Muhammad appellant is also available from the statement of Qamar Ahmad Bhatti (P. W. 7). On the face of such evidence it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that Sardar Muhammad appellant who was officially entrusted with the maintenance of documents, prepared wrong copies of it and supplied its incorrect copies to the complainant with a view to persuade him to part with money and sustain the claim of Umaid Khan appellant knowing it to be non-existent with regard to ownership of the land and thereby obtained the money from Lt.-Col Umar (P. W. 2) In the circumstances, the conviction of the appellants under the offences as disclosed, would appear to be quite proper and justified.
10. As regards the sentence; it appears in view of the concurrent sentence that has been awarded that the substantive portion would be only three years with a fine of Rs. 15.000 for each of the appellants. The amount involved and having been obtained from Lt.-Col. Umar (P. W. 1) being Rs.
15,000 and the case involving substantial investment of Lt.--Col. Umar (P. W. I), it cannot be said that the sentence is such as may require interference in appeal It is one of those unusual cases where the Patwari had taken upon himself as did Umaid Khan appellant to prepare documents to show one of -these as owner of the land and to obtain valuable benefits by such misrepresentation. The appeal against convic--tion and sentence is dismissed.