The two appellants were charged, alongwith six others, for the alleged commission of offences punishable under section 420/468, P.P.C. Read with section 109, P.P.C. And also for an offence punishable under section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, by a learned Special Judge, Anti- Corruption at Lahore.
2. Through his judgment, dated 12-4-1990, the learned trial Court acquitted the six co-accused of the present appellants and found these two guilty but only of an offence punishable under section 419, P.P.C. And after convicting them accordingly sentenced each one of them to imprisonment till the rising of the Court. In addition to this imprisonment, Ahmad Din appellant was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000 or to suffer three months' R.I. In default of payment of this fine whereas Partap Khan appellant was punished with a fine of Rs.5,000 or sufferance of two months' R.I. In default thereof.
3. The allegation against Partap Khan appellant was that he had become a witness to a sale-deed, which was a forged and a fabricated document and the role attributed to Ahmad Din appellant was that being a Lumberdar of the village he had identified a fictitious person as the owner of land which was being transferred through the-sale-deed in question.
4. This person is not traceable till date.
5. The learned Court had dealt with the two appellants rather leniently on the ground that the appellants and their co-accused had themselves been made victims of the fraud perpetrated by an unscrupulous person; that on coming to know of the commission of this fraud, the appellants and their acquitted co---accused had, by themselves, got the sale-deed in question cancelled through a Civil Court and finally that they had no personal gain or motive in the execution of the decd in question.
6. Ahmad Din appellant was a Lumberdar of the village, part of whose obligations was to assist the State and its agencies in matters such as identification of individuals in connection with matters relating to land and other immovable property. Even if it be assumed that he had no monetary interest in the execution and the registration of the sale-deed in question, then he was grossly negligent in the discharge of his obligations not only as a Lumberdar but also as an ordinary citizen who had declared somebody to be who that somebody was not.
7. I would have ordinarily enhanced the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the two appellants but on account of a lapse of almost eight years since the commission of the offence in question, 1 have exercised judicial restraint in not issuing a suo motu notice for the said purpose.
8. The learned counsel has elected not to press this appeal and prays for permission to withdraw the same.
9. This appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
10. The learned trial Court had allowed thirty days' time to the appellants for the deposit of the amount of fine imposed on each one of them. This part of the sentence was suspended by this Court on 9-5-1991.
11. This period of thirty days shall now start running from today and in case this fine is not deposited, as directed, then both the appellants shall be taken into custody to undergo imprisonment directed in default of payment of fine.
12. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Kasur, as also to the Member (Revenue) of the Board of Revenue, Punjab to consider whether a Lumberdar with the conduct as displayed by Ahmad Din appellant deserved to continue as such.