DR. MUNIR AHMAD MUGHAL, J.--- The appellant and two others namely Mst. Anwar Bibi and Ishtiaq Hussain were tried in the Court of Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore under Sections 420/466, 468/471/34 PPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on the allegations that tin appellant who was posted as Revenue Patwari Halqa Jia Bagga Tehsil and District Lahore in the year 1986 abused his official position as public servant, issued forged Fard Malkiat in respect of land measuring three kanals 10 marlas in the name of Mst. Khurshid Bibi and by deceiving Sardar Ali etc., complainant party and in furtherance of common intention with co-accused Mst. Anwar Bibi, Ishtiaq and Muhammad Kahalid dishonestly and fraudulently caused wrongful loss of Rs.
15,000/- by registering sale deed in favour of Sardar Ali etc., on behalf of Mst. Khurshid Bibi while actually produced Mst. Anwar Bibi alias Nargis at the time of registration of sale deed and has also committed criminal mis-conduct.
2. The appellant and other co-accused were convicted under Sections 420/34 PPC and sentenced to R.1, for six months with a fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. For one month. They were acquitted on the charge under Sections 468/471 PPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Both the convicts have filed separate appeals. This judgment shall dispose of appeal filed by Bashir Ahmad, accused only.
3. After formal inquiry the appellant and co-accused were charge- sheeted where they pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses at the trial and the accused denied the allegations in their statements under Section 342 Cr.P.C. The appellant denied the issuing of copies of Jamabandi and also denied the signatures on agreement and tendered Jamabandi for the year 1982-83 Ex.DA in his defence. The trial Court found the appellant and the co-accused guilty under Section 420/34 PPC and passed the impugned sentence while acquitted them of the other charges.
4. Arguments have been heard at length and record perused. The conviction and sentence must be based on evidence beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has to stand on its own legs throughout without taking advantage of any flaws in the defence. In the present case the admitted position is that at the trial both the complainants appearing in the witness- box as PW.3 and PW.4 did not support the prosecution version and were declared hostile to the prosecution and despite maximum cross-examination the prosecution could not bring any indiscriminating piece of evidence against the appellant. In their cross-examination PW. 3 and PW.4 have categorically stated:- "It is also incorrect that accused Bashir Ahmad Patwari gave us assurance about the correctness of title of Mst. Khurshid Bibi and in respect of revenue record. It is also incorrect that Ishtiaq Hussain executed an agreement Ex.PW. 3/4 to return the amount received by the fraudulent party' and Bashir Ahmad Patwari put his signatures on the same as a witness. The contents of complaint Ex.PW. 3/2 are not correct and the statement which I gave today in Court is correct one."
It is further stated by PW. 3 in his cross-examination:- "It is correct that I produced original sale deed Ex.PW. 3/1 and copy of Jamabandi Ex.PW. 3/5 which was taken into possession vide memo. Ex.PW. 3/6. It is also incorrect that Fard Ex.PW. 3/5 was provided to me by the accused. It is also incorrect that I have made false statement to save the accused, and that I have been won over by the accused. It is incorrect that compromise has been effected between the parties."
5. In order to attract Section 420 PPC it must be proved:-
(i) That the accused has cheated the complainant; and
(ii) That the accused has by such cheating induced the complainant to deliver any property to any person.
The word "Cheating" has been fully defined in Section 415 PPC as under:- "415. Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person (or any other person) in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to cheat'."
6. From the above evidence the appellant has neither cheated the complainants nor thereby induced them to deliver the property to any person and in such circumstance the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption was not justified to pass the impugned conviction and sentence. The appeal is therefore, accepted and the impugned conviction and sentence are set aside.
The appellant is already on bail. He is discharged of his bail bonds.