' This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bahawalpur, whereby he on 11-7-1984 convicted Mushtaq Ahmad appellant under section 468, P.P.C. And section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to a fine of Rs,500, in default thereof two months' R.I. On each count with the direction that the sentences will run concurrently.
2. The appellant was working as Patwari in village Daulatabad in the year 1976. The charge against him is/was that abusing his official position as a public servant and adopting corrupt and illegal means, he entered false report in Mutations Nos. 194 to 197 in favor of Riaz Ahmad, Punnal, Bashir Ahmad and Hazoor Bakhsh although they were neither residents of village Daulatabad, nor any order was passed by Deputy Land Commissioner, Rahimyar Khan for the transfer of 100 Kanals to each of them under M.L.R. 115 and as such, mutation could not have been entered in their names.
He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. To prove its case, prosecuton produced 9 witnesses. Ghulam Rasool P.W.1 produced file pertaining to inquiry against Mushtaq Ahmad appellant relating to Mutations Nos. 194 to 197. He proved the inquiry report submitted by Sh. Ata Ullah, A.C. Sadiqabad, which is P.W.1/A-1. Abdul Majid Girdawar, P.W.2 stated that on the notice issued by A.C. Sadiqabad, to Hazoor Bakhsh, Punnal, Bashir Ahmad and Riaz Ahmad, the Patwari had reported that they were not the residents of village Daulatabad. He proved notice, Exh.P.W.2/A, Exh. P.W. 2/A-1, Exh. P.W. 2/A-2, and Exh.P.W.2/A-3. He proved his report on the back of the notice which is Exh.P.W.2/B-1. Muhammad Shafi Patwari, P.W.3 stated that Mushtaq Ahmad appellant had entered Mutations Nos. 194 to 197 of village Daulatabad.
He further stated that Bashir Ahmad, Hazoor Bakhsh, Punnal and Riaz Ahmad, who have been shown tenants in the entry, were in fact not the tenants. Bashir Ahmad, Patwari P.W.4 stated that he had received notices, Exh.P.W.1/A-1, Exh.P.W.2/A-1 and Exh.P.W.1/A-3 for the service upon Punnal, Hazoor Bakhsh, Bashir Ahmad and Riaz Ahmad but they could not be traced in village Daulatabad, so he made reports Exhs.P.W.4/B, C, D and E on 28-121977. Ata Ullah Qureshi, A.C. Sadiqabad appeared as P.W.S. He stated that after inquiry he had submitted his report Exh.P.W.1/A-1 to D.C.
Rahimyar Khan with regard to the entry made by appellant in Mutations 194 to 197. On his report the Deputy Commissioner directed for the registration of the case against the appellant, so he sent report Exh.P.W.5/B to Circle Officer, A.C.E., Rahimyar Khan for registration of the case. Yousaf Ali, Record-keeper, P.W.6 stated that Mutations Nos. 194 to 1% were cancelled on 29-10-1979 and Mutation No, 197 was cancelled on 29-12-1979 because no land had been allotted to tenants mentioned in the Report of the Patwari. Nazir Ahmad Patwari P.W.7 stated that on his taking over the charge from Mushtaq Ahmad appellant, he noticed that Mutations Nos. 194 to 197 in favour of Riaz Ahmad, Punnal, Bashir Ahmad and Hazoor Bakhsh had wrongly been entered by his predecessor, so he made report for the cancellation of mutations. On this, Gul Muhammad Khan, Tehsildar cancelled the mutations by his order written on 'Pert Patwar' but on Pert Sarkar the mutations' were sanctioned. On review, the mutations were finally cancelled. He stated that P.W.1/A and P.W.1/A-1 are the Photostat copies of Pert Patwar and Pert Sarkar of Mutation No, 194 Exh.P.W7/B and Exh.P.W.7/B-1 are the Photostat copies of Pert Patwar and Pert Sarkar of Mutations Nos.195 Exh.P.W.7/C and Exh.P.W.7/C-1 are Photostat copies of Pert Sarkar and Pert Patwar of Mutation No, 1% Exh.P.W.7/D and Exh.P.W.7/D-1 are Photostat copies of Pert Sarkar and Pert Patwar of Mutation No,
197. The witness stated that the persons in whose favour these mutations were entered were neither the residents of village Daulatabad nor did they own or cultivate any land in the village.
Kausar Abbas, Circle Officer, A.C.E., Bahawalpur, had investigated the case. Bashir Ahmad, Girdawar, P.W.9 stated that according to the record of Land Reforms, no land was allotted to Riaz Ahmad, Bashir Ahmad, Punnal and Hazoor Bakhsh and allotment forms in their names were never received in the office of Land Reforms.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. He, however, admitted to have made relevant entries in Mutations Nos. 102/6, 101/8, 102/5 and 101/7 about the transfer of land measuring 400 Kanals in the names of Riaz Ahmad, Punnal, Bashir Ahmad and Hazoor Bakhsh, under M.L.R.
115. In defence he did not produce any witness.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that under section 42 of Land Revenue Act, 1967, the appellant/Patwari was obliged to enter the report in the mutation and as such had committed no offence and that the correctness of the entries made by the Patwari/appellant in the mutations was to be examined by the Revenue Officer. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the allegations against the appellant are that he simply made entry in favour of Riaz Ahmad and others in the mutations although they were not the residents of village Daulatabad; that he has not done any wrong to anyone; that under the law he was obliged to enter report (right or wrong) made to him and it was for the Revenue Officer to verify the same; that the conviction is mainly based on the report of Bashir Ahmad Patwari P.W.7 to the effect that Riaz Ahmad and others could not be traced in village Daulatabad; that the conviction seems to have been based on surmises and conjectures and that the evidence produced by the prosecution accepted at its face value, does not make out a case of the commission of forgery with intent to cheat, against the appellant.
' For what has been said above, the appeal is accepted and the appellant is acquitted of the charge. He stands discharged of bail bonds.