' This appeal impugns the judgment, dated 4-11-1986 of the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore, by which he convicted and sentenced the appellant for 6 months' R.I. Under section 420, P.P.C. And a fine of Rs,5,000 under section 218, P.P.C. And in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. For 6 months.
2. First Information Report was recorded on 20-8-1975 at 9-00 a.m. At Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Sialkot by P.W.10 Circle Officer, A.C.E. On the basis of complaint Exh. P.W.1/1 submitted by complainants P.W.1 Muhammad Iqbal, Hashim Ali son of Fateh Muhammad and Shamas-ud-Din son of Ch. Wali Dad. They had alleged that they were residents of Mauza Phagwari Muslamanan, Tehsil Shakargarh, District Sialkot, that certain elements of their village in collusion with Revenue Patwari Alaf Din and other employees after interpolating with forgery the mutations and depriving the noble people of their lands were teasing them and the proof of the same was the record of the Revenue Department, the attested copies whereof were appended with the complaint. They stated that some instances shall be brought to the knowledge at the spot and some record would be available from the Revenue Department. The complainants had addressed their complaint to the Superintendent, Anti-Corruption Police, Lahore. Firstly they stated in it that Shabbir Ali son of Hussain Baldish mortgaged his land in 1957 to Hukam Din son of Heera and got attested the mutation and thereafter in 1966 paid back the mutation money and got the mutation of redemption of mortgage in his favour. The said Hukam Din died in 1968. The proof of the same was annexed with the complaint Exh.P.W.1/1. Secondly, in 1974 Fazal Ahmad, Lumberdar in collusion with Abdul Hamid son of Muhammad Sarwar with the help of Alaf Din Patwari showed Hukam Din alive and impersonated Abdul Hamid as Hukam Din and got recorded his statement that he had not taken back the money and some Patwari had got entered wrong mutations, and the actual mutation had been got cancelled. The proof of the same were attached with the complaint. Thirdly, Abdul Hamid son of Ahmad Din, resident of Phagwari Muslamanan's family mutation of 1 kanal which was in possession of Abdul Majid and without his knowledge after committing forgery, Alaf Din Patwari and Abdul Hamid son of Muhammad Sarwar got mutation sanctioned for 7 marlas in the name of their father, which Abdul Majid had got cancelled by filing a civil suit. These instances alongwith the proof were present and was requested that after registration of the case and after obtaining record about other instances, to proceed against the two Fazal Ahmad Lumbardar and Abdul Hamid son of Muhammad Sarwar alongwith Alaf Din Patwari.
3. The prosecution had examined 13 P.Ws. In all to substantiate its case. The trial Court had acquitted Nawab Din and Alaf Din. Accused-appellant Fazal Ahmad when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution version against him and stated that he was innocent and also made statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. On oath. He stated:--- "On 31-10-1974 Nawab Din, Naib-Tehsildar had visited our village Phagwari Muslamanan and I was present there. I signed Mutation No,589 on blank form. Then he went to Shakargarh alongwith the register of mutations. No order was passed on the spot."
4. It is surprising that attested copy of mutation tendered by the Public Prosecutor in this case was wrong and did not contain correct facts. A perusal of register Exh.P.W.7/1 shows that against Mutation No,589 Hakam Din was recorded as present and having objected to the redemption of mortgage on the plea that the mortgage money was not paid nor possession delivered.
5. In Jalsa-e-Aam the people of the village assemble and it was not possible for the appellant to identify a wrong person as Hakam Din on 31-10-1974. The appellant had raised the plea that on 31- 10-1974 his signatures were obtained from acquitted co-accused Nawab Din and had also denied having falsely identified Hakam Din as alive. The acquitted co-accused Alaf Din had stated under section 340, Cr.P.C. On oath that the acquitted co-accused Nawab Din, Tehsildar came to the village as he wanted mutation registered and verification etc. Thereon and during cross- examination by the learned Public Prosecutor he had admitted that Hakam Din had died in 1968 and he had given a note that possession had not been delivered. Neither Hakam Din appeared before him nor any person claimed to be Hakam Din and Shamas Din Patwari had wrongly entered Mutation No, 589. The appellant while making statement under section 340, Cr.P.C. On oath had stated that on 31-10-1974 Nawab Din (acquitted co-accused), Naib-Tehsildar visited village Phagwari Muslamanan, where he was present and signed Mutation No,589 form. Thereafter the said Nawab Din went to Shakargarh alongwith the register mutation and no order was passed at the spot. During cross-examination by the learned P.P. The appellant Fazal Din had stated that Hakam Din died in 1968. Nobody appeared in Jalsa-e-Aam as Hukam Din. It is pertinent to mention here that in the general meeting where the residents of the village assemble and in their very presence no lumberdar or revenue official can dare to and think of producing some fictitious person in place of a dead man for mutation purposes. The case of the appellant is not free from doubt and I hold that the prosecution has not succeeded to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt against the appellant.
6. Pursuant to the above discussion, giving the benefit of doubt to the appellant, this appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the charge. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged. 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.