Noor Ahmad (45) son of Allah Bakhsh, Revenue Patwari, Mauza Chandna, resident of Ward No.20.
Jhang City, was sent up for trial under section 409 P.P.C. By Police Station Massan, District Jhang.
The learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha, vide his judgment dated 17-12-1985 convicted and sentenced him to one year R.1. And a fine of Rs.3,000 or in default further R.I. For three months. The convict has appealed against his conviction and sentence.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, as disclosed by the witnesses, is that during the year 1978 Noor Ahmad was posted as Revenue Patwari in Halqa Budhi Thathi, Jhang. He prepared Dhaal Baches for Rabi 1978 and collected land revenue from the land-owners amounting to Rs.26,666.30. He failed to deposit the said amount and misappropriated the same. Abdul Razzaq, PW-18 Naib--- Tehsildar, detected the non-deposit of the amount mentioned above, in November, 1980.
Thereafter, he held an inquiry and lodged complaint Exh. PK on 2-11-1980 with Police Station Massan. F.I.R. Exh. PK/1 was recorded on 2-11-1980 on the statement of Abdul Razzaq, PW-18. After due investigation, challan against the appellant was submitted in Court.
3. The prosecution in support of its case produced 21 witnesses in all. PW-1 Manak was declared hositle. PW-2 Ghulam Hussain stated that the appellant was Patwari of their village and he (witness) paid him land revenue for Rabi 1978 amounting to Rs.364.75. The appellant issued receipt Exh. PA. PW-3 Sultan also paid land revenue to the appellant for which receipts Exh. PB/ 1-3 were issued. Allah Ditta, PW-4 paid Rs. 428 to the appellant for which he gave receipt Exh. PC. Ghulam Abbas, PW-5 paid Rs.1,000 to the appellant but could not produce any receipt, because according to him he had lost the same. Similarly, 6her and Allah Dad, PWs-6 and 7, respectively, asserted that they had also paid land revenue to the appellant for Rabi 1978 but had lost the receipts. Allah Dad, PW-8 paid Rs.652.75 'as land revenue to the appellant for Rabi 1978 for which the appellant executed receipt Exh. PD. PWs Sikandar, Manak and Noor, also had paid land revenue to the appellant for Rabi 1978 for which he had executed receipts Exhs. PE, PF and PG, respectively, which were in the handwriting of the appellant as well as signed by him. Nazar PW-12 had paid Rs.1,000 to the appellant as land revenue but he could not produce any receipt. PWs.13 and 14, Khushal and Roshan paid land revenue to the appellant for which receipts Exhs. PH and PI, respectively, were issued by the appellant in his own handwriting. Abdul Razzaq, PW-18 was Naib-Tehsildar, Jhang, on 2-11-1980. He detected that the appellant had not paid the Government dues which he had collected from the land-owners; therefore, he reported the matter to the police and got the case registered. The rest of the witnesses are of formal nature, therefore, need not be discussed.
At the 'conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 342 Cr.P.C. Wherein he denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. He also appeared on oath in his defence and pleaded innocence by saying that it was not his function to collect the land revenue, therefore, he was falsely involved in the case by the Naib-Tehsildar.
It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that it was not the function of the appellant to collect land revenue nor he had been appointed as such specifically, therefore, the charge is baseless. Submits that it is m evidence that during the Rabi 1978 there was a Lambardar in the village who used to collect the land revenue, therefore, the involvement of the appellant has not been proved. The contentions have been opposed by learned counsel for the State.
4. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. In support of I its case, the prosecution has produced 21 witnesses in all. Some of the witnesses like PWs-3 4 and 8 to 11 to 14 deposed that they paid land revenue for Rabi 1978 to the appellant who was Halqa Patwari, and he also executed receipts acknowledging to have received land revenue from the witnesses. The said witnesses were also able to produce the said receipts which were duly exhibited. The defence cross- examined the said witnesses at length but not even one of them was suggested that the receipts so produced by the witness was not in the handwriting of the appellant or he had never executed the same. No motive for false involvement has also been suggested to any of the witnesses. I have gone through the evidence myself and find that it is confidence inspiring. Therefore, I, hold that the prosecution witnesses can safely be relied upon.
For what has been discussed above, I hold that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any doubt. Resultantly, the appeal fails which is accordingly dismissed.
S.A./N-204/L