' Appellant Girdharilal was tried along with co-accused Rajibdin by Mr. Abdul Jabbar Bachani, Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial) Sukkur, for the offence under section 467/468, P.P.C., read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, who found the appellant guilty for the offence under section 218, P.P.C., read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and vide judgment dated 20-10-1982, sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs,10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) or in default to suffer R.I. For six months. Co-accused Rajibdin was, however, acquitted. By this appeal filed under section 410, Cr.P.C., read with section 10 of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, the appellant has questioned the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence recorded against him.
2. On 23-1-1971, City Survey Officer, Sukkur, addressed the following confidential letter to Director, Settlements, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad:- "It is respectfully reported as under:-- ' That one Ghulam Nabi, owner of C.S. No 1276 Ward 'D' Snkkur applied for the copies of the property card, as well as property register. The copies were prepared by Mr. Noor Muhammad, the clerk of this office and when those were put up before me for signatures, I made thorough check of the entries and found that in the property register the area of the above-said City Survey Number is shown as 125-7 Sq. Yards. There appears an addition of one hundred yards and in the column of remarks is written "Grant hundred yards" vide Orders No, 1964 and 65 dated 1-7-1938. The note in the column of remarks appears to be written very recently.
' The perusal of the card shows that its printed serial number is 3004. The original card, according to the serial arrangement of card system should have been 1050 which is missing. This card seems to have been written in the handwriting of Mr. Girdhari Lal. No order regarding replacement and preparation of the fresh card is available in this office. After that Mr. Rajab Din has made entries in the card, on 13-10-1970 for mutation and further sales of the property in question. Further it appears that Mr. Girdhari Lal has mentioned the area of the property as 125-7 Sq.Yards, but subsequently it has been changed to be 225-7 Sq. Yards by overwriting.
' From the perusal of the City Survey Sheet of the year 1933, it is evidently clear that rubbing and the scrapping have been done and lines have been redesigned with black ink. If it would have been a proper entry, the correction should be with red ink as per rules.
' In view of the above facts it is requested that the matter may be thoroughly enquired into in the interest of the department."
3. The Director of Settlements, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad examined the record and asked the City Survey Officer, Sukkur, to re-examine the case thoroughly and then report for action.
The City Survey Officer, Sukkur submitted his report dated 22-10-1971 stating therein that forgery was actually committed. He was, however, not able to fix the responsibility. The Inspector of the Revenue and City Surveys, Khairpur Division, was then directed to hold necessary enquiry and submit a detailed report. He also failed to find out the person at fault. Consequently on 28-4-1972, the Director of Settlements, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad, sent a written report to Director of Anti-Corruption, Sindh at Hyderabad, which formed the basis of this prosecution. The investigation revealed that appellant Girdharilal and co-accused Rajibdin who worked as City Surveyor, Sukkur were responsible for committing this forgery. After usual investigation and obtaining requisite sanction the appellant and co-accused Rajibdin (since acquitted) were sent up.
4. At the trial the prosecution examined Abdul Wahid, City Surveyor (P.W.1), Haji Ghulam Nabi (P.W.2), !Chair Muhammad, Senior Clerk (P.W. 3), Mian Muhammad Hafeez, Addl. C.O. (P.W..4), Mushtaque All Awan C.O. (P.W.5) and Muhammad Rafique C.O. (P.W.6).
5. The appellant met the charge with a denial. He admits to have prepared the card but states that he is not responsible for committing forgery, which was done by some one else. He examined Ghous Bux Clerk (D.W.1) in his defence.
6. On the assessm ent of evidence, both oral as well as documentary, the learned Special Judge found the appellant guilty for the offence under section 218, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and convicted him accordingly.
7. I have heard Mr. Abdul Majid Abbasi, learned counsel for appellant and Mr. Zawar Hussain Jafferi, learned AA.-G. For State. The latter has supported the impugned judgment.
8. Admittedly there is nothing on record to prove that the appellant was responsible for committing forgery. The learned Special Judge observed so in clear terms. The reasons which prevailed upon him for convicting the appellant for the offence under section 218, P.P.C., read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, are:-- "I agree with the Investigating Officer. Looking to the evidence as a whole, that the circumstances speak very strongly against Mr. Girdharilal, that he was inefficient in the performance of duty. It is true that there is no indication of forgery being established on the record that he was the forgerer, who showed the additional grant of 100 yards in the remarks column, where the property was originally shown to have been granted in the area during 1938. But other circumstances of preparing the incorrect record with criminal intention, suggest the circumstances that Mr. Girdharilal had the full knowledge of the forgerer."
' While summing up the discussion the learned Special Judge again remarked:-- "As regards Mr. Girdharilal is concerned, if there is no direct evidence of forgery, he is guilty of preparing incorrect record which is indicated from the above circumstances of criminal nature to save the real forgerer from punishment."
9. A judgment should be based strictly on the evidence available on record. It should also, above all things, be balanced not only in ideas, but also in arrangement of the different topics discussed therein. The findings cannot be based on conjectures alone. The learned Special Judge on one hand has observed that there was no evidence of forgery, but at the same time he convicted the appellant mainly on the ground that he knew about the real culprit. This findings is based on mere surmise and not on any evidence.
10. Section 218, P.P.C. Deals with wilful falsification of public records with intention of injuring any person, or saving any person from legal punishment or saving any property from forfeiture or other charge. No such evidence was available on record. On the contrary the report of Inspector of Revenue and City Surveys, Khairpur, indicates that the fresh card was reconstituted by the appellant in accordance with the standing instructions. The appellant who remained as City Surveyor for only 1-1/2 months has admitted to have prepared the card. It is, however, his case that additions/interpolations on the card were made by someone else. A conviction is certainly not to be based on the weakness of the defence but only on the strength of the prosecution. There is no iota of evidence one record to establish charge under section 218, P.P.C. Against the appellant. The above admission cannot be torn out of the context.
11. For the reasons mentioned above the conviction recorded against the appellant cannot be sustained. The impugned judgment is, therefore, set aside and the appeal is accepted. The appellant who is on bail is acquitted and his bail-bond is discharged. The fine, if paid be refunded to the appellant.