' The appellant and two others, namely, Bashir Ahmad and Ishtiaq Hussain were tried in the Court of learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore under sections 420/466/471 and 34, P.P.C. And section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on the allegations that Bashir Ahmad, co- accused who was posted as a Revenue Patwari Halqa Jia Bugga, Tehsil and District Lahore in the year 1986 abused his official position as a public servant, issued forged Fard Malkiyat in respect of the land measuring 3 Kanals 10 Marlas in the name of Mst. Khurshid Bibi and by deceiving Sardar Ali etc. The complainant party and in furtherance of common intention with Mst. Anwar, the present appellant, Ishtiaq and Muhammad Khalid 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, the present appellant, at the time of registration of sale-deed and has also committed criminal misconduct.
2. The appellant and other co-accused were convicted under section 420/ 34, P.P.C. And sentenced to R.I. For six months with a fine of Rs,5,000, each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. For one month. They were acquitted on the charge under section 468/471, P.P.C. And section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
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 defined the allegations in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. She alleged that she was got involved falsely by accused Bashir Ahmad and that she wanted to sell her own land when her thumb- impressions were obtained on some papers.
4. The learned trial Court found the appellant and the co-accused guilty under. Sections 420/34, P.P.C. And passed the impugned sentence while acquitted them of the other charges.
' Arguments have been heard at length and record perused.
6. The short point involved in this appeal is as to whether on the basis of evidenced that has come on the record the impugned order of conviction could be legally passed when the charge against the appellant is that she impersonated her as Khurshid Bibi in connection with an alienation of piece of land. The complainants Muhammad Siddique appeared as P.W.3 and Sardar Ali P.W.4 did appear in person and exonerated the appellant. They were declared hostile and were allowed to be cross-examined but nothing incriminating could come from their mouth against the appellant.
Muhammad Siddique Halqa Patwari (P.W.6) had deposed that Khurshid Bibi had alienated her entire land in 1984 and did not own any land. It means that at the relevant time the complaint and the whole super-structure raised on it was without a basis. The prosecution has, thus, miserably failed to bring home the guilt against the appellant. The learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption was not justified to imagine a situation which did not arise out of evide e and circumstances of the case or to arrive at a conclusion not supported by evidence. In the case of Brij Bhushan Singh v. The King-Emperor (AIR 1946 PC 38) their lordships of the Privy Council observed:-- ' "Where the Court discusses in great detail the statements made by the witnesses under section 164 and gives reasons for accepting the facts, or most of the facts deposed to in those 'statements' in preference to the evidence given by the witnesses in Court, which is no way helped the prosecution, this is an improper use of such statements.
' Similarly, in the case of Akram Khan and another v. The Crown (1969 PCr.LJ 1213) their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that decision should be given on judicial evidence and not on personal beliefs.
For what has been discussed above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned conviction and sentence are set aside. The appellant is already on bail and she is discharged of her bail bonds.