The appellant Allah Bachaya was a revenue Patwari in mauza Lai Wahan 'Tehsil Lodhran' District Multan, and was tried under section 5 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for illegally acquiring property in a number of villages in his own name, in the names of his wife AIst. Amir Khatun, his father Khuda Bakhsh and his father-in-law Allah Diwaya, on the allegation that this property was disproportionate to his known resources of income. He was convicted on the above charge and was sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 12,200. In default of the payment of fine he was to serve a further term of imprisonment of one and a half years.
2. The learned Special Judge found that the allegation that he had acquired land benarni in the names of his wife, his father and his father-in-law, had not been substantiated. He, however, found that the appellant had purchased property worth Rs. 12,200 without the prior permission of his department and that the acquisition was beyond his known sources of income. The record shows that the appellant purchased property worth Rs. 62,000 by mutations Nos. 1249, 1621 and 1628 in the year 1963 which are Exhs. P. C., P. G. and P. F. respectively on this record. In addition he purchased another area of 33 kanals for Rs. 6,000 by mutation No. 1615 which was not produced at the trial nor, was the alienor made to appear at the trial to depose to that effect. We, however, find a mention of this transaction in the fourth column of statement Exh. P. F. which is a detail of the purchases made in this case.
It is an admitted fact that the annual declaration of properties submitted by the appellant to the higher authorities did not show the acquisition of these properties. It appears that he was dismissed from service before this prosecution was launched against him and we need not, therefore, discuss this aspect of the case.
3. The appellant admitted the acquisition of these properties but stated that he had got inflated prices incorporated in the mutations to avoid pre-emption. Sikandar Hayat (P. W. 9) sold four kanals 15 marlas of land entered in Exh. P. C. which was battjar qadirn and was sold to the appellant for a sum of Rs. 5,000. He denied the suggestion that the price actually paid was Rs. 450 and that Rs. 5,000 was as fictitious price. This money was not paid in the presence of the Revenue Officer nor is there any documentary evidence to the effect that a sum of Rs. 5,000 was paid as a price for this piece of land. The copy of the mutation shows that Ahmad Bakhsh Sarbrah Lambardar of village Koondi was a witness at the time of the attestation of the mutation. He was examined in defence and stated that the land had originally been sold for a sum of Rs. 1,000 but the price was fictitiously mentioned as Rs. 5,000.
The second mutation is Exh. P. G. regarding the purchase of land measuring two kanals for Rs. 500 from one LJmar Din.
The third purchase is evidenced by mutation Exh. P. F. of land measuring 3 kanals 16 marlas of agricultural land acquired by the appellant in Lodhran Town for a sum of Rs. 7C0. The alienor in this case was not examined and the transaction has not, therefore, been strictly proved.
4. The learned Special Judge came to the conclustion that there was positive proof that the appellant while in service had purchased agricultural land worth Rs. 12,200.
5. The appellant produced eight defence witnesses one of whom Fazal Ahmad (D. W. 4), a shop keeper of Lodhran stated Allah Bachya appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 6,000 from him on the basis of a pronote. Muhammad Bakhsh Patwari (D. W. 7) and Umar Ali Patwari (D, W. 8) were produced to show that the office Qanungo had obtained the signatures of the Patwaris on the declaration of the property without telling them the nature of the document.
6. Mr. M. Anwar, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a short legal point. He submitted that no evidence was led at the trial to show as to what were the resources of the appellant which he is found to have exceeded and thus purchased land worth Rs. 12,200. The learned Special Judge estimated his income at Rs. 150 per month but there is no evidence on record to show how this estimate was formed. The learned counsel is right in saying that it is just a conjecture and it is not clear how the learned Special Judge has found this figure to represent the monthly income of the appellant. We have it in evidence that the father and the father-in-law of the appellant were well- to do people. The onus was on the prosecution to prove as to what were his resources and it was then for the appellant to prove that the purchases were within his resources.
7. The plea of the appellant that inflated price was fixed with regard to these lands appears to be correct at least in respect of the land purchased vide P. C. This land measures only four kanals 15 marlas and is Banjar Qadim. It is situtated in village Sandewala. It is impossible to imagine that this small piece of banjar qadim land could be valued at Rs. 5,000 whereas the agriculture land at Lodhran, which is a prosperous town, measuring three Icanals 16 marlas as evidenced by mutation Exh. P. F., would be worth Rs. 700.
8. The crucial point against the appellant was not proved. He had served for a number of years and it is not unlikely that he was able to save some money for these purchases. I give him the benefit of doubt and allow this appeal. His conviction and sentences are set aside. He shall be released forthwith unless he is lawfully required to be detained in connection with some other case. . 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.