' Muhammad Nazir son of Ghulam Muhammad, caste Arain, was convicted and sentenced to five years' R.I. Under section 468, P.P.C. Plus a fine of Rs,5,000 or in default to suffer six months' R.I. By the learned Magistrate Section 30, Lahore Cantt, on 11-12-1982. He was also convicted and sentenced to one year's R.I. Under section 471, P.P.C. It was ordered that the sentences so awarded shall run concurrently.
2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Muhammad Nazir and others committed a fraud and thereby deprived Mst. Zainab Bibi of her ten Marla land situated in village Mahmood Booti, Lahore by means of a false registered sale-deed. The prosecution case was that some other lady was produced before the Sub-Registrar by the accused in place of Mst. Zainab Bibi, real owner of the land and got the sale-deed executed. The sale-deed was attested by Muhammad Sarwar Nadeem, Advocate.
She was identified by Muhammad Yousaf. During the investigation, the appellant Muhammad Nazir and Muhammad Yousaf were found guilty. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced Sycd Hassan P.W.1, Muhammad Sarwar Nadeem P.W.2, Ghulam Rasool Shah P.W.3, Zainab Bibi P.W.4, Hafiz Saraj Din P.W,5, Muhammad Hafeez P.W.6, Bahadar Ali P.W.7, Zahid Hussain P.W.8, Muhammad Alam S.I. P.W.9 and Muhammad Yaqoob A.S.I. P.W.10. The learned trial Magistrate also summoned Haji Muhammad Siddique as C.W.1.
3. Muhammad Nazir appellant denied the allegations levelled against him in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Abdul Hamid D.W.1 and Mian Noor Muhammad D.W.2 were produced by him in support of his version. Learned Magistrate Section 30 believed the prosecution version and recorded the conviction against the appellant as stated above. However, the other accused were acquitted vide the same judgment for lack of evidence.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel that there was not an iota of evidence available on record to connect the appellant with the commission of the crime. He states that according to the prosecution version the principal accused, namely Muhammad Yousuf was acquitted and as such there was no justification to convict and sentence the appellant on the basis of same set of evidence. Learned counsel has also brought to the notice of the Court that the parties are closely related inter se and that they have entered into a compromise. It is also stated that the disputed land is still in the ownership and possession of Mst. Zainab Bibi complainant. The learned State counsel, therefore, has no objection to the acquittal of the present appellant.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have also gone through the record with care. Syed Hassan, Halqa Patwari, P.W.1 stated that he did not know as to who was in the physical possession of the land in question. According to him, Nazir appellant did not approach him with some sale-deed to make an entry in the Revenue Record. Muhammad Sarwar Nadeem P.W.2 deposed that he submitted his report after fully satisfying himself about the genuineness of the transaction in question. He also stated that no forgery was committed in the case. Ghulam Rasool Shah P.W.3 did not support the prosecution case inasmuch as he stated that Muhammad Yaqoob A.S.I. Asked him to sign Exh.P.B., the sale-deed. This witness was also subjected to cross- examination by the prosecutor but nothing substantial could be obtained from him which might be favourable to the version of the prosecution. Mst. Zainab Bibi, P.W.4, however, stated in her evidence that she was deprived of her land by the accused. Abdul Hameed, D.W.1 is related to Mst. Zainab Bibi complainant. He deposed that the accused were implicated in the case on account of enmity.
6. After scrutiny of the evidence, I am of the view that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. There is no trustworthy evidence to show that a false document was prepared by the appellant with a view to cheating the complainant. In order to attract the provisions of sections 468 and 471, P.P.C. It is necessary to prove that a false document was prepared with an object to cheat the complainant. There is no such evidence available on record. The property in question admittedly remained in the ownership and physical possession of the complainant. This fact was candidly conceded by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. Even otherwise, from the statement of the learned counsel, it is evident that the parties being closely related have already entered into a compromise and that the complainant does not wish to prosecute this appeal further. For all these reasons, there is no alternative but to accept this appeal and acquit the appellant of the charge. The appellant is on bail. He shall be discharged of his bail bonds. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is allowed.