' The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that the appellant filed a complaint under section 420/468/471, P.P.C. Against respondents 1 to 4 in the Court of Magistrate First Class, Jhang, on 22-4-1986, alleging therein that Hakim respondent persuaded him that his maternal-nephew Noor Ahmad respondent wanted to sell 20 acres of his land. On 4-8-1973 Hakim respondent came to him and took him alongwith his brother Muhammad Sadiq, his niece Mst. Rukhsana and Niaz to settle the transaction. The appellant agreed to buy the said land for Rs,30,000. On 6-8-1973 both parties assembled at Malobana where Faqir Muhammad respondent, Hakim Khan, Muhammad Akbar Patwari respondents and the Tchsildar were present. It is alleged that at the time of settlement of the sale, respondent No,4 told the appellant that he should not disclose the transaction for a period of one year to anybody in order to avoid pre-emption suit. He was not given the possession of the land. Then it is alleged that the appellant was informed that the said land had been cancelled from the name of Noor Ahmad etc. As a result of litigation pending in the High Court.
' The complainant appeared himself and produced two witnesses in support of his version, as given in the complaint. The learned Magistrate after scanning the prosecution and the defence evidence, acquitted the respondents by his judgment, dated 21-2-1989. The complainant filed a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal, which was admitted for regular hearing by order of this Court dated 9-9- 1989 and was converted into present appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the respondents by deceitful means induced the appellant to purchase the land vide mutation Exh.P.A. For Rs,30,000 which, in fact, did not belong to them, as there was litigation pending with respect to the ownership of that land, hence they committed the offences under section 420/468/471, P.P.C. In addition to that, he submitted that had the appellant been given the knowledge that litigation between Muslim owners and the Central Government is pending in the Court, the appellant would not have purchased the land.
Over and above this, the possession was not delivered to the appellant, which proves that from the very beginning the respondents had no intention to pass title to the appellant, hence the offence was fully proved, but in spite of that, the trial Court acquitted the respondents which has resulted into miscarriage of justice.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents more or less adopted those arguments which prevailed with the trial Court while passing the acquittal order. He submitted that it is clear from Exh.PA. That when the mutation was effected, the respondents were the owners of the land through purchase which has been described therein hence they have not committed any fraud or deception on the appellant. The amount was paid in the presence of the Revenue authority and after proper verification mutation was sanctioned in the name of the appellant as is evident from Exh.P.A. Hence by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the respondents have wilfully deceived the appellant to part with the money and thus committed the offence. In addition to that, learned counsel submitted that the Revenue Patwari has been added as a respondent without there being formal sanction from appropriate Government, hence this complaint from the very inception was incompetent and as such the order of acquittal is justified.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find great force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that in the presence of Exh.P.A. Respondent No,1 was the owner of mortgagee rights of the evacuees, hence it cannot be said that by selling the land to the appellant he practised fraud on the appellant, because the pendency of litigation did not affect the title of the respondent No,1 to transfer the land in dispute to the appellant for valuable consideration in the presence of revenue official through mutation Exh.P.A. The trial Court has neither misread the evidence, nor his order can be said as perverse; hence no ground for interference is made out. The legal point raised by the learned counsel for the respondents with respect to the competency of the complaint against the Revenue Patwari without formal sanction need not be discussed here in view of the order which I am going to pass in this case.
5. For the foregoing discussion, I find no force in this appeal, which isle accordingly dismissed.
Acquittal upheld.