1kramul Haq, Ziladar, Canal Department, Jandoki Section. Tehsil Hafizabad and Sardar Muhammad, Canal Patwari, Chah Baluchan, Hindwana Section, Tehsil Hafizabad, were tried under sections 468 and 471, P. P. C. Read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for giving illegal remissions (kharaba) of land revenue to certain land own--ers in Chak No. 98/GB, Tehsil Jaranwala, and thus causing unauthorised loss to the Government. The learned Senior Special Judge; Anti-Corruption by his judgment dated 4th March, 1977 found both the accused guilty under each of the three sections and sentenced them to nine months' rigo--rous imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rupees One Thousand (Rs. 1,000) each or in default thereof to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment each under each of these sections. The appeal of both the convicts is now before me for disposal.
2. The brief facts of the case are that certain land owners of Chak No. 98/GB, Tehsil laranwala, including Sultan Ahmad, Lambardar, and Mohammad Bashir and Mohammad Sharif, cultivators, filed applications in the office of the Ziledar, Tehsil Jaranwala. Claiming remission of land revenue in respect of failure of crops in certain killas held by them. On 5th November, .1971 Akramul-Haq accused, who was the Ziledar, visited the village and after making spot inspection, entered the remissions in his own handwriting on the foils of Form 9-B in the 6th column (Hukam Ziledar) thereof, thus granting remis--sions to different land owners and cultivators next to the khasra Nos.
Of plots held by them where there had been failure of crops. The said.Forms are collectively exhibited as P. W. I I/C. Columns Nos. t to 5 on the foils of the said Forms giving the Serial No. Name of the cultivator, the number of the khasra/square, the area of the plot and the crop sown therein, were filled in by Sardar Mohammad accused, the Canal Patwari, whereas Column No. 6 relating to the remissions granted was filled in by Akramul Haq accused, the Ziladar. On 3rd February, 1972, one Mohammad Anwar, P.W. 3 tiled a complaint Exh. P.E. Before Fazal Mohammad S.C.O./A.C.E, P.W.
11 that the accused had falsely allowed kharaba for the sugarcane crops of Sultan Mohammad, Lambardar, and Mohammad Bashir and Mohammad Sharif, cultivators. On the basis of the said statement formal F.I.R. Exh. P.E./ 1 by Mohammad Anwar P, W. 3 was recorded at Police Station A. C. E Faisalabad. On the order Exh. P. W. 8,'A of the Assistant Commissioner, Jaranwala, a raid party was formed on 4th February, 1972 comprising Mohammad Hussain, Deputy Collector P. W. 1, Mohammad Anwar P.W. 3, Riasat Ali P.W. 5, Mohammad Abdullah Revenue Patwari P.W. 7, Malik Mushtak Ahmad Tehsildar, Jaranwala P. W. 8 and Fazal Muhammad S.C.O./A.C.E. P. W.
11. Malik Mushtaq Ahmad Tehsildar P.W. 8 recorded the statement Exh. P.F. Of Mohammad Anwar P.W.
3. The raid party then went to Chak 98/G.B., Tehsil Jaranwala, where they inspected the areas for which remissions had been granted. Since most of the Sugarcane crop had been cut since the kharaba inspection had first been carried out on 5th November. 1971 by the Ziladar, the raid party found good and healthy sugarcane crop killa No. 15 of square No. 66 in killa No. 17 of Square No. 73 and killa No. 20 of Square No. 48 in respect of an aggregate area of 10 kanals 8 marlas, recording which remissions had been illegally allowed by the accused, thus causing a loss of Rupees one Hundred Twenty (Rs. 120) to the Government. The raid report Exh. P.W. I1/F, was prepared by Mohammad Hussain P.W. 1 and raid report Exh. P.W. 8/B with kharaba report Exh. P.A. Were prepared by Malik Mushtaq Ahmad Tehsildar P.W.
8. Both the accused were sent up for trial for having prepared false documents and for allowing illegal remissions to the land owners/ cultivators concerned and thus causing loss to Government.
3. On 14th December, 1981, the learned counsel for the appellant made a statement in this Court that Akramul Haq appellant had died on 6th April, 1981 and that his appeal had abated. The S.H.O, Police Station Farid Town, Sabiwal, was, therefore, ordered to investigate whether the said appellant had died, as reported, and to submit his report to this Court The report of the S H O, Police Station A-Division, Sahiwal, dated 20th December, 1981, was received, which showed that Akramul Haq appellant had died on 6th April, 1981. In these circumstances the appeal of Akramul. Haq appellant as regards his sentence has abated. His appeal as regards One has not been argued. His sentence of. Fine, therefore, remains and stands. The appeal of Sardar Mohammad appellant, the Canal Patwari now remains to be decided.
4. Before dealing with the case of Sardar Mohammad appellant, it is necessary to state in brief the procedure which is adopted by the Canal Patwaris and Zaildars when applications for remission of land revenue are received from the land owners/cultivators. The rules for Remis--sion on account of Failed Crops is contained in Canal Departments' Reference FA & C No. 49 dated 8th February 1944 (as amended by Reference A & C dated 12th June, 1949 and Instructions regarding Main-- tenance and Preparation of Urdu Form No. 9-A (tanaza form) is A & C No. 50 dated 8th December, 1,944. Under para 5 of the Instruction entries on the foils and counter-foils of form No. 9-A have to be made by the Patwaris, as per the darkhawast kharaba with the help of khasras. For this purpose, the patwaris have to be called to the Zaildars Office for two days or so well in time before the commencement of the kharaba inspection in question, Under para. 6 of the said Instructions, the Zaildars Reader has to verify all entries made by Patwaris on foils and counter--foils with darkhwast kharaba and record a certificate to that effect both on the foils and counterfoils. Where corrections are made, he has to do so by initiating the overwriting. Under para. 7 thereof, the foils are to be detached from the register by the Vernacular Clerk and handed over to the Zaildar. Under Rule 9 of the Remission Rules, the Zaildar bad to make his kharaba inspection with the Fard darkhwast kharaba, khasra shudkar. Under rule 9 of the Remission Rules and para. 8 of the Instructions, the Ziledar at the time of kharaba inspection has to record in ink the result of his kharaba inspection in the appropriate column on the foils of the forms, giving the forms, giving the areas of each of the fields where the crop has failed with the amounts of remission allowed in each case in his own handwriting. Under para. 9 of the Instructions, the recommendations made by the Zieldar on the foils of Form No. 9-A have to be copied by the Vernacular Clerk on the counterfoils and the foils have then to be dispatched to the higher authorities for their approval, within 24 hours.
The foils are actually dispatched to the office of the XEN, who, after approving the same, sends the same back to the Ziledar concer--ned, who, in turn, sends it to the Patwari to incorporate the kharaba parti--culars in the khatauni. The paracha kharaba or mad is then prepared by the Patwari and attached at the end of the main khataunl earlier prepared by him.
5. In the instant case, on receipt of applications for remission of land revenue, Sardar Mohammad Patwari on 29th October, 1971 prepared the foils and counter-foils of Form No. 9-B in the; office of the Ziledar Jaranwala on the basis of the material supplied by the land owners/ cultivators in their application for remission. Forms 9-B were used as Forms 9-A were not available. It may be mentioned at this stage that when Sardar Mohammad appellant prepared the khataunl sometime much earlier than November, 1971, he did not enter any particulars of failed crops (kharaha) next to any of the killa Nos. Of the land held by the owners/cultivators. What was then written in the khatauni were the particulars of the crops grown in the different killas with their areas. After the foils and counter foils of Forms 9-B were prepared by him, both the foils and counter foils were left at the Ziledar's office. It was on 5th November, 1971 that Akramul Haq Ziledar came to the village for kharaba inspection, bringing with him the foils of Forms 9-B. After making a spot inspection of the kharaba areas, Akramul Haq Ziledar himself noted in his handwriting the extent of the kharaba and the remission allowed in column No. 6 of the said forms. The said forms bearing the noting of Akramul Haq Ziledar are collectively marked Exh. P. W. 11/C. After the notings were so made by Akramul Haq Ziledar, the same were taken by him to his office, where the entries contained in the 6th column were copied out in the counter foils of the same Forms maintained at the Ziledar's office. Thereafter, the foils Exh. P. W. 1 l /C were sent on 24th November, 1971 to the office of the XEN.
On 29th November, 1971 the office of the XEN sent the same back with its approval to the Ziledar, Jaranwala. The same day, the Ziledar sent it to Sardar Muhammad appellant, the Canal Patwari of the Chak, for incorporating its particulars in the khasra khatauni. Sardar Mohammad appellant, thereupon prepared Exh. P. I. The statement of remissions (parcha mafz) which he then attached with the original khatauni which had been prepared much earlier. The whole operation shows that Sardar Mohammad appellant had nothing to do with the preparation of any false and fabricated document with a view to enable the Ziledar to grant illegal remissions of land revenue. He prepared Forms 9-B, (which are collectively marked Exh. P. W. 11/C) from particulars which were given in the apple--cation forms submitted by the land owners /cultivators. Under the Rules, he had no duty to check these particulars by spot inspection. The duty of so checking the kharaba at the spot was that of the Ziledar who came to the village on 5th November, 1971 and personally inspected the kharaba and granted the remissions in his own hand by entering the same A in column No. 6 of the said forms. The statements were then sent to the office of the XEN, where they were approved. The forms were then sent to the Patwari so that he could prepare formal statement of remis--sions and attach the same with the Khatauni earlier prepared by him, which was done, but the same does not show that he was guilty of any offence in any way. In these circumstances, the conviction of the appellant appears to be founded on an erroneous view of the law and on misreading of the evidence. The appellant is entitled to a clean acquittal.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence of Sardar Muhammad appellant is set aside. He shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other petitioner is on bail His bail bond shall stand discharged.