' The appellant, Dildar Hussain alongwith Allah Lok and Muhammad Anwar, was challaned for having misappropriated an amount of Rs,91,995.94 of land revenue while posted as Patwari Halqa Chunnu and Shirian Tehsil and District Okara in collusion with each other for the crops of Rabi 1985 to Rabi 1987 from the landowners of the aforesaid Mauzas. Muhammad Anwar Lambardar, co- accused of the appellant, died before framing of the charge whereas Allah Lok, co-accused, has been acquitted by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore vide the impugned judgment. Dildar Hussain, appellant, was convicted under section 409, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to one year's R.I. And fine of Rs,1,00,000 and in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo additional R.I. For six months vide judgment, dated 22-3-1995 which has been challenged in the instant appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that in a written complaint Exh.P.W.6/1 filed by Tehsildar Okara, it was alleged that Dildar Hussain, appellant, while posted as Patwari and Allah Lok as his helper, collected and misappropriated land revenue amounting to Rs,91,995.94 from the landowners of the said Mauzas for the crops from Rabi 1985 to Rabi 1987. The amount so collected was never deposited in the Government Treasury by the accused for which an enquiry was conducted and they were found guilty by the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report to A.C., Okara. He marked the same to Muhammad Naseem Sadiq, M.I.C., Okara who lodged the Police. A challan after registration and investigation of the case was submitted in the Trial Court against all the aforementioned three accused.
3. The prosecution produced as many as 10 witnesses to prove guilt of the accused. P.W.1 Shabbir Ahmed, Patwari stated that Dildar Hussain, appellant, had been collecting land revenue alongwith Lambardar but he did not know whether the accused deposited the so collected amount in the Government treasury or not. He further stated that the collection related to the years from 1985 to 1987. P.W.2 Lal Chowkidar stated that Dildar, appellant, alongwith Gulzar Naib-Qasid had been coming to their village frequently to collect the land revenue. He did not know whether the accused did or did not deposit the collected amount in the treasury. P.W.3 Muhammad Yousaf stated that both the accused had been collecting land revenue from Mauza Sharian jointly as well as individually. P.W.4 Noor Ali stated that Dildar and Chowkidar Lal came to him 5/6 years back and got land revenue of Rs,117 from him for one crop against receipt. He further stated that both the accused had been receiving land revenue from other Zamindars also. P.W.5 Wallia stated that about two years back accused Dildar and Chowkidar Lal received land revenue amounting to Rs,200 on one occasion and Rs,100 on another occasion from him. P.W.6 Muhammad Ismail A.S.-I., lodged formal F.I.R. Exh.P.W.6/2 on receipt of the complaint. P.W.7 Mian Mohsin Rashid, Tehsildar stated that on receipt of enquiry report from Naib-Tehsildar, he drafted complaint Exh.P.W.6/1 and directed the Police to register a case against the accused. P.W.8 Sikandar Ali stated that Gulzar peon received Rs,223.49 as revenue from him for which Dildar accused executed the receipt. P.W.9 Ghulam Nabi, 5.-I. Stated that in the year 1990 he was posted as Sub-Inspector at Police Station Gogera and he partly investigated the case. He also stated that he arrested the accused Anwar, Gulzar, Naib-Qasid and Dildar Patwari. He further stated that after receipt of sanction order Exh.P.W.9/1 his successor Yar Muhammad submitted final challan against the accused in the Court.
P.W.10 Muhammad Nawaz, however, not supported the prosecution version and he was declared as hostile.
4. Dildar Hussain appellant pleaded innocence in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. And stated that recovery of land revenue was the duty of the Lambardar only. Lambardars of the village were defaulters, therefore, they were not delivered Dhal Bash for recovery of the land revenue.
Instead Tehsildar deputed his subordinates Naib-Qasid Yousaf and Gulzar to recover the said amount, who, might have recovered the amount themselves. However, the landowners complained to him that they were receiving excess amount from them and he brought this fact to the notice of higher Officers. Tehsildar got annoyed with him and falsely implicated him in this case. Dildar accused also produced two witnesses in his defence. D.W.1 Abdul Aziz and D.W.2 Muhammad Iqbal, both stated that Dildar Patwari never received any land revenue from them or the landowners of the village during the period from 1985 to 1987.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that to recover the land revenue is the duty of the Lambardar concerned and the Patwari has no authority whatsoever to collect the same. No documentary evidence has been produced on record to show that the appellant received even a single penny from any landowner. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish guilt of the accused. The evidence relied upon against the appellant has been disbelieved as against co- accused Allah Lok who has been acquitted by the learned Trial Court. The order of his acquittal has not been challenged by the State, hence he is also entitled to acquittal.
6. Learned State Counsel has, however, supported the conviction of the appellant.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as State Counsel at length and perused the available record. It is the duty of the village headman to collect the land, revenue from the landowners under the Land Revenue Act. The statement of the appellant that Lambardar of the village was not collecting the land revenue satisfactorily, therefore, Tehsildar deputed his subordinates Naib-Qasids to effect the recovery and deposit in the Government Treasury, is not without substance. The Naib-Qasids might have received the amount under the directions of the Tehsildar but the prosecution has failed to produce any document to show that the appellant was deputed to recover the land revenue. No receipt has been produced by any of the landowner showing the signatures of the appellant in token of receipt of any amount of land revenue by him.
The entrustment of the amount allegedly embezzled by the appellant has not been proved on record.
8. The ocular account furnished by the P.Ws. Has been disbelieved qua Allah Lok, co-accused who has been acquitted by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, it is unsafe to convict the appellant on the basis of the same evidence which has already been disbelieved qua the co-accused.
9. Departure of rule for collection of land revenue by Patwari is not understandable in the present case. If there was any special order for such purpose, then it ought to be placed on record showing that appellant was deputed to recover the land revenue instead of the village headman. No such order or any receipt has been placed on record to show that any amount of land revenue was collected by the appellant from the landowners. I have scanned the entire evidence and failed to find out any document connecting the appellant with the commission of the crime. The prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence and it has been disbelieved by the learned Trial Court qua the co-accused, the same cannot be relied upon in this case unless there are any differentiating factors therein. It was the duty of the prosecution to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt. The prosecution having failed to prove its case, the benefit of doubt will go to the accused.
' For the reasons stated above, this appeal is accepted and the appellant is acquitted of the charge. He is already on bail by this Court. His surety and bail l bonds shall stand discharged.