This order will dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 727/77 and Criminal Revision No. 687/77. The appeal challenges the conviction under sections 420, 465 and 467, P. P. C. And sentence of one year R. I.
And fine of Rs. 600, in default six months, R. I. Recorded against each appellant by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Multan at Sahiwal vide order dated 15-8-1977. The revision is for enhancement of sentence.
2. The case of the prosecution is that land of Farid was got mutated through impersonation by Murid accused since deceased, after recording of evidence in favour of Sultan accused-appellant and Ramzan absconder sons of Murid. The mutation Exh. P B was entered into by Muhammad Sharif Patwari, appellant, and Muhammad Lambardar appellant, who identified the parties before the attesting officer on 17-8-1966.
3. On an application dated 14-10-1966 of Farid to the aforesaid effect, Rana Muhammad Asghar, Naib-Tehsildar held an enquiry, though admittedly without associating the accused persons, and get a case registered vide F. I. R. Exh. P. A. On 27-10-1966. On the motion of Farid, the Revenue authorities set aside the mutation and efforts of the vendees failed upto the Board of Revenue. It is stated by the learned counsel for the parties that the vendees have filed a civil suit against Farid which is still pending. However, after registration of the criminal case, Sultan Ahmad, S. I. P. W. 10 investigated the case and challaned the accused persons, namely, Sultan, appellant and Ramzan absconder sons of Murid, the vendees, Murid, alleged impersonator who had, died after recording of evidence, Muhammad Lambardar the identifier, and Muhammad Sharif, Patwari, appellant who had , entered the mutation.
4. The case of the defence is that Farid who is a Lambardar himself came with another Lambardar Muhammad, appellant, to Muhammad Sharif Patwari, appellant, and stated that he had sold his Land measuring 53 kanals 12 marlas for Rs. 16,080 in favour of Sultan and Ramzan sons of Murid. An entry at No. 482 dated 8-8-1966 was made in the Roznamcha Waqiati Exh. P C/1 which was attested by Muhammad, Lambardar, appellant. The Patwari Muhammad Sharif entered the mutation and presented before the attesting authority who recorded the mutation and directed the Kanungo to verify it. Sufi Ikramul Haq, the Kanungo did verify it. Thereafter, the Naib Tehsildar attested the mutation. There was nothing wrong. Farid had resiled from the transac--tion to pocket the consideration.
5. Relevant evidence on behalf of the prosecution is furnished by Farid, complainant, P. W. 1, Ahmad P. W. 3, Rana Muhammad Asghar Khan, Naib-Tehsildar, P. W. 7, Sufi Ikramul Haq, P. W. 9 and Sultan Ahmad, S. I., P. W.
10. Others have said that they heard about the false mutation but they were not present at the time of attestation of the mutation.
6. Analysis of the evidence on the record in the light of the plea of the defence may be now made.
Farid P. W. 1 had said that he had not sold his land. He did not get the mutation sanctioned. It was Murid since deceased who had impersonated him. When he came to know of the above, he made an application to the Naib-Tehsildar. Now, Farid P. W. I is himself a Lambardar. In the mutation proceedings he is recorded to be present. The transaction is entered into on the identification of the parties by a Lambardar Muhammad, appellant. The Recording Officer, who is also the attesting Officer, namely, Rana Muhammad Asghar Khan, Naib-Tehsildar P. W. 7 says that "Farid Lambardar the seller was known to me previously and he had been identifying sellers at the time of attestation of mutation. I attested mutation Exh. P B (the disputed one) in open session at Ballewala Farm. Farid P. W. Was personally present. Again said I cannot rule out the possibility that Farid P. W. Had personally appeared at the time of the attestation of the mutation Exh. P B. None objected at the time of attestation of mutation that the seller was not present." Now, if Farid the seller, was known to the officer recording the mutation and the officer attests the mutation, where is the fault of the Patwari Muhammad Sharif who had entered the mutation, of Muhammad Lambardar who had identified the parties and of Sultan in whose favour mutation had been sanctioned ? If anybody were at fault really it was the attesting officer. No more need be said as he is not present. In any,, case, in view of the facts that Farid was known to the attesting office " and the latter had attested the mutation in open assembly without any--body's demur, no guilt can be attached to the accused appellants. The statement of Ahmad P. W. 3 that Muhammad Lambardar and Muhammad Sharif Patwari, appellants, made an extra-judicial confession before him of no value being joint as held in Sikandar v. The State (1975 P Cr. L J 1229), besides that he is no responsible person to be confessed to and is a nephew of Farid, complainant.
7. In view of the above state of evidence, guilt has not been brought home against appellants Muhammad Sharif and Sultan beyond reasonable doubt. Their appeal is accepted, their conviction and sentences are set aside. They shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
Revision for enhancement of sentence obviously fails and is dismissed.
8. It is however, added for abundant caution though it obviously goes without saying that anything said in this judgment shall have no bearing or relevance on the civil suit said to be pending between the parties which shall be decided on the basis of evidence produced on the record of the civil suit and law applicable thereto. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.