' This appeal arises out of the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha and Faisalabad Divisions, with headquarter at Sargodha, who vide his judgment, dated 20-1-1987 sentenced and convicted the appellant under section 468, P.P.C. To undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court and also a fine of Rs,1,000, in default thereof to further undergo S.I. For one month.
2. Briefly stated that facts of the prosecution case are that complainant P.W.2 Muhammad Nawaz moved a complaint against the appellant that Ghulam Jilani, Rab Nawaz sons of Mst. Daulat Khatoon daughter of Shera, caste Tiwana, resident of Mauza Botala, Tehsil and District Khushab inherited about seven acres of land and Ghulam Jilani etc. Got separated their land after mutation and also got possession. After about two years Sher Ali etc. Got the same on lease. The lease amount had been obtained regularly. Sher Ali, Niaz Ali, Haq Nawaz sons of Fateh Khan, Muhammad Mumtaz son of Sultan All in connivance with Patwari Halqa got a decree of the land in their favour from the civil Court, Jauharabad on 20-3-1979. Due to the decree Mutation No,329 dated 6-4-1980 was got effected in the Revenue Record, without knowledge of Ghulam Jilani etc., the owners of the land. Thereafter Ghulam Jilani etc. Agreed to sell the land to the complainant and for filing a suit applied to Patwari Halqa for getting copy of Register Haqdaran on which he issued a copy of Register Haqdaran with false recitals therein, whereby Ghulam Jilani and others were shown as owners of the land, while in fact their title had extinguished, with the civil Court's decree. The complainant filed a suit for consent decree against Ghulam Jilani etc. Which was decided in his favour on 5-3-1981. After getting the consent decree he moved to the Halqa Patwari for the mutation of land in his name. Halqa Patwari had not informed the complainant about the earlier mutation but demanded Rs,4,000 which amount was paid to him. Whereafter the Halqa Patwari completed the documents and got the same sanctioned in the name of the complainant, concealing the fact that the land had already been sold and mutated vide Mutation No,329. The Patwari Halqa should not have issued copy of Haqdaran-i-Zamin in the name of Ghulam Jilani etc. On the basis of the complaint the case F.I.R. No,4 dated 3-8-1983 was recorded.
3. The prosecution had examined five witnesses in all. P.W.1 Amir Muhammad partly investigated the case and secured photostat copies of Arbitrators Awards Exh.PA. And Exh.P.B. Of the decree sheet dated 28-3-1979, Exh.P.C. Extract of Register Haqdaran Exh.P.D. For the year 197576 and a copy of decree dated 5-3-1983 Exh.P.E. And arrested the appellant on 18-1-1984. P.W.2 Muhammad Nawaz is the complainant of the present case who narrated the facts of the complaint Exh.P.F. P.W.3 Fazal Din was Record-keeper from the year 1984 till 14-9-1985 of the office of D.C. Khushab and had produced civil Courts files of Civil Suit No,217, decided on 28-3-1979 and Civil Suit No,121 of 1981, decided on 5-3-1981, the originals of the consent decrees Exhs.P.C. And P.E. P.W.4 Muhammad Aslam Patwari Mauza 41/MB Khushab stated that in the year 1982 he worked as Halqa Patwari Botala Tehsil and District Khushab and had issued Exh.P.G. And Exh.P.H. In accordance with record.
The police secured the same by Exh.P.J. P.W.5 Muhammad Ejaz Akhtar, Constable Moharrar, A.C.E., Khushab on the receipt of complaint Exh.P.F. Had recorded the F.I.R. Exh.P.F./1.
4. The appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C. Had denied the prosecution evidence against him and while answering question why this case against him he replied "Mst. Alam Khatoon was the owner of the aforesaid land. She died. Regarding her lands mutation of her inheritance No, 9 was sanctioned on 27-7-1976 in favour of her legal heirs. Ghulam Jillani and others are such legal heirs and they became owners of land through inheritance. Niaz Ali, Sher All and others aforesaid the brothers of Mst. Alam Khatoon secured a civil Court's decree dated 28-3-1979 through fraud. On the date of such decree, Allah Bakhsh and Muhammad Iqbal were dead. According to the decree copy Exh.P.C./I entered sale Mutation No,329, in favour of Sher All and others and against Allah Bux and Muhammad Iqbal and others on the basis of civil Court's decree dated 28-3-1979. This mutation was sanctioned by the Revenue Officer. Thereafter I was transferred from Botala to Halqa Bijjar.
Because of such transfer, red ink entry about Mutation No,329 copy Exh.P.G./1 could not be made in the Register Haqdaran. My successor, then got sanctioned Mutation No,358 and 359. Thereafter I was again transferred to Botala in Bandobasti Halqa. I prepared a copy of Register Haqdaran whose photostat copy is Exh.P.D. Correctly and according to record. Mutation No,368 was made 2 times. That was erroneous. Because of this the complainant turned against me and made this false case."
5. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had not committed fraud and he had not received Rs,4,000 from the complainant as bribe.
6. P.W.2 Muhammad Nawaz complainant during cross-examination stated that the appellant had aided in the Civil Court for obtaining consent decree in his favour because the appellant had engaged a lawyer for them and got made the plaint. P.W.2 had paid him money on demand.
Ghulam Jillani, Rab Nawaz and Mst. Daulat Khatoon also attended the Court in connection with consent decree in favour of the complainant. The appellant had engaged a lawyer for them as well. The appellant had paid expenses of the civil suit, court fee thereon, the engagement of lawyers and the issuance of consent decree in favour of the complainant. The accused had not paid, District Council fee and Thal Tax on behalf of the complainant. P.W.2 further stated during cross-examination that the amount of Rs,4,000 was paid by him to the appellant as expenses of court-fee and engagement of counsel's fee and District Council fee. The said amount of Rs,4,000 was not paid to the appellant as bribe.
7. P.W.2 complainant had not paid Rs,4,000 as bribe to the appellant as stated by him in the cross- examination. The appellant had already been transferred from the Halqa and there is no evidence that the appellant prepared Exh.P.D. And more over the same was not sent to the handwriting expert but the appellant after his retransfer to the same Halqa had issued Exh.P.D. After comparing the same with the record which was already prepared in red ink. The appellant had issued Exh.P.D.
In accordance with record after comparing the same.
8. Pursuant to the above discussion I am of the view that the case of the appellant is not free from doubt, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged.