' Zahoor Din son of Jalal Din appellant was found guilty for the charge under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. And was accordingly convicted by the learned Assistant Commissioner/M.I.C. Shorkot vide judgment dated 18-1-1987. However, the learned trial Court instead of awarding him sentence of imprisonment obtained bond from him for a period of one year under section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960.
2. On the revision filed by Ajjar Din complainant (P.W.1) the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang vide judgment dated 10-3-1987 upholding the conviction of the appellant under section 471, P.P.C. Awarded him sentence of two years' R.I. With a fine of Rs,5,000 in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. For three months by virtue of section 8 of the aforesaid Ordinance. The amount of fine if recovered, was ordered to be paid to the complainant and Mst. Zahooran (P.W.4) in equal shares.
The appellant did not file any appeal challenging his conviction awarded by the learned trial Court but he in the present appeal has questioned the conviction and sentence awarded to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in revision petition filed by Ajjar Din.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case, are that Mst. Asghari (P.W.3) moved an application (Exh.PA.) before the Deputy Commissioner, Jhang stating that she and her sister Mst. Zahooran (P.W.4) inherited the agricultural land situated in Mauza Shorkot Shumali, Zahoor Din appellant their first cousin with the intention of depriving them of their land and to grab the same himself prepared a forged and fictitious affidavit to the effect that the complainant and her sister Mst.
Zahooran had died and with the collusion of the revenue official Mutations Nos. 5710 and 5711 were got attested. The Deputy Commissioner, Jhang got the matter inquired by the Assistant Commissioner, Shorkot who reported that mutations were the result of forgery and fraud and as such the same were cancelled. A case under section 420/468/471, P.P.C. Was registered against the appellant vide F.I.R. (Exh.PA./1) recorded by Zahoor Ahmad, Head Constable Muharrir (P.W.2) on the basis of the application (Exh.PA.).
4. Muhammad Sharif S.I. (P.W.5), the Investigating Officer of the case took into possession general power-of-attorney (Exh.P.B.) vide memo Exh.P.C. He recorded the statements of the P.Ws. And thereafter on his transfer Muhammad Riaz S.I. (P.W.6) after completing the remaining investigation submitted the rhallan in the Court. The prosecution produced six witnesses in all and also placed on record the documents viz. Affidavit (Exh.P.D.), copies of Mutation Nos. 5710 and 5711 (Exh.P.E. & Exh.P.F.), copy of application for review of mutations (Exh.P.G.) and copy of statement of Zahoor Din appellant (Exh.P.H.).
5. The accused denied the charge and produced copy of the application for review of mutations (Exh.D/1) and copy of the plaint (Exh.D/2) in his defence.
' Ajjar Din (P.W.1) stated that Mst. Asghari (P.W.3) and Mst. Zahooran (P.W.4) are his first cousins and they inherited five acres of land from their father. The appellant on the basis of a forged affidavit certifying death of two ladies got attested Mutation Nos. 5710 and 5711 (Exh.P.E. And Exh.P.F.) in 1981.
' Zahoor Ahmad Muharrir Head Constable (P.W.2) had .Recorded the formal F.I.R. (Exh.PA./1).
' Mst. Asghari (P.W3) verified the contents of the application (Exh.PA.).
' Mst. Zahooran (P.W.4) did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile.
' P.W.5 and P.W.6 are the Investigating Officers of the case.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in fact the dispute between the parties was that of distribution of their shares in the joint land inherited by them as co-sharers and that it is not a case of criminal liability. He submitted that the parties have already compromised the matter and the mutations in questions were cancelled and that no actual gain or loss is involved.
The statement of Mst. Zahooran (P.W.4) if read with the documents produced in defence create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case, therefore, the conviction and sentence is not sustainable.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has supported the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have minutely perused the record.
8. The appellant after his conviction from the trial Court did not file any appeal challenging his conviction, most probably for the reason that the trial Court on conviction instead of sentencing him to imprisonment obtained from him bond for a period of one year under section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960. Thus so far as the conviction of the appellant is concerned that in fact had attained finality and only the question of sentence is left in appeal.
9. A convict, in order to get benefit of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 has to fulfil certain conditions and for that matter the Court exercising power under the Ordinance also has to assign reasons without which the concession of executing a bond cannot be given. The learned trial Court without pointing out any circumstance to justify the exercise of powers under Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 passed order of release of the appellant for no valid ground. The argument that the learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have interfered in revision has no force to digest. There is no limitation on the powers of the revisional Court to correct the illegality committed, except that an order of acquittal cannot be converted into conviction. In the present case, the appellant was found guilty and convicted accordingly by the trial Court but the imposing of sentence was withheld for no legal justification.
10. Learned counsel for appellant has not been able to support the order of learned trial Court under the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 or to point out any illegality in the order passed by the revisional Court, rather does not challenge the conviction and simply prayed for taking lenient view in the matter of sentence for the consideration that the appellant is a man of advance age and the parties being closely related inter se have already entered into a compromise and are living peacefully. Since the appellant has not challenged his conviction, the conviction of the appellant is therefore, maintained and the appeal is dismissed. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case sentence of the appellant is reduced to already undergone with a fine of Rs,3,000 instead of Rs,5,000. With this modification, the appeal is dismissed.