' Briefly stated the facts are that on 28-4-1987, Manzoor Husain and Zahoor Husain purchased land measuring 16 Kanals and 16 Marlas from Mst. Jannat Bibi for a sum of Rs,20,000. A Mutation No, 925, dated 30-9-1987 regarding that land was sanctioned. Later on, Mst. Jannat Bibi with the connivance of Muhammad Munir Halqa Patwari and Ahmad Ali Halqa Girdawar is alleged to have got issued another Fard Malkiyyat and sold her land measuring 18 Kanals and 9 Marlas vide sale- deed, dated 8-3-1988 to Muhammad Bakhsh and others for a sum of Rs,20,000. Manzoor Husain and others having felt aggrieved of subsequent alienation by Mst. Jannat Bibi, approached the Additional Director, Anti-Corruption, People's Colony, Faisalabad, by means of an application, upon which an inquiry was conducted and it was found that Muhammad Munir Patwari, Ahmad Ali Girdawar and Mst. Jannat Bibi have committed offences under sections 468, 471 and 420, P.P.C., read with sections 5(2) and 47, P.C.A. Accordingly, registration of case against delinquent persons was ordered and consequently, F.I.R. No, 37, dated 28-12-1989 was registered against them. After- usual investigation, the case was sent up to the Trial Court.
2. A charge under sections 468, 471 and 420/34, P.P.C., was framed against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the pendency of this case, Ahmad Ali accused was acquitted under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Vide order, dated 15-9-1992 and case proceeded against the remaining accused/appellants.
3. In order to bring home guilt to the accused, prosecution examined P.W.1 Syed Asif Husain, P.W.2, Manzoor Husain, P.W.3 Zahoor Husain, P.W.4 Rana Khalid Husain, P.W.5 Mamoora, P.W.6 Ahmad Yousaf, Muhammad Bakhsh P.W.7, P.W.8 Munawar Ahmad, P.W.9 Habib Ullah S.I., P.W.10 Muhammad Aslam Niazi, Assistant Director (Investigation) and P.W.11 Allah Yar. Thereafter, the learned AD(P) closed the prosecution evidence vide his statement, dated 12-2-1998.
4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Accused Muhammad Munir denied the prosecution version and stated that he had issued a correct Fard Malkyyat of Manzoor Husain and Zahoor Husain as there was no entry in the Revenue Record regarding the sale effected vide Mutation No, 925, dated 30-9-1987. He further stated that he had been implicated in this case falsely as Manzoor Husain and Zahoor Husain P.Ws. Desired him to show their possession on roadside land, though they were not in possession of the same. He stated that he would neither lead any evidence in his defence nor would like to record statement under section 340(2). Mst. Jannat Bibi accused when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Also denied the prosecution version and stated that she had been implicated by the complainant party as a dispute regarding land had been going on between them. She stated that she never got any Fard Malkyyat issued nor alienated the land through any sale-deed. She also stated that she would not like to make a statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C., and would not also like to get herself examined under section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
5. After going through the evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court convicted the accused/appellants under sections 468, 471 and 420 read with section 34,. P.P.C., and sentenced each of them to R.I. For three years and fine of Rs,10,000 on each of the three counts. He further directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently and they will be entitled to the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
6. Mst. Jannat Bibi accused/appellant felt aggrieved of the said judgment and filed the instant appeal.
7. Muhammad Munir accused/appellant has also filed Cr. A. No, 332 of 1998 against the same judgment. As both these appeals arise out of the same judgment, so these are being disposed of by this single judgment.
8. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
9. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant Mst. Jannat Bibi is that as per prosecution version, she had alienated land measuring 16 Kanals and 16 Marlas in favour of Manzoor Husain and Zahoor Husain vide sale-deed, dated 28-4-1987, on the basis of which Mutation No,925 was sanctioned on 30-9-1987, that later on, Mst. Jannat Bibi with the connivance of Muhammad Munir Halqa Patwari got a Fard Malkyyat issued and sold land measuring 18 Kanals and 9 Marlas vide sale-deed, dated 8-3-1988 in favour of Muhammad Bakhsh and others, that as Mst. Jannat Bibi had already alienated the land in favour of Manzoor Husain and others vide sale-deed referred above and Mutation No,925, dated 30-9-1987 had already been entered, so Mst. Jannat Bibi and Muhammad Munir Patwari committed an offence for which they have been charged and convicted. He further contended that prosecution has examined P.W.2 Manzoor Husain, P.W.4 Rana Khalid Hussain, P.W.6 Ahmad Yousaf, P.W.8 Munawar Ahmad Patwari and P.W.11 Allah Yar Lambardar to prove the alienation of land measuring 16 Kanals and 16 Marlas by Mst. Jannat Bibi in favour of alleged vendees Manzoor Hussain and others. He referred to the cross-examination of P.W.2 Manzoor Hussain, wherein he admits that Mst. Jannat Bibi never sold any land to him and he committed fraud against her by getting mutation in his favour. He further drew the attention of this Court to the cross-examination of P.W.4 Rana Khalid Hussain petition-writer who admits that Mst.
Jaunt_ Bibi was not personally known to him-ptior to that date and he could identify the persons whose sale-deeds hid been scribed by him during the entire year. He also referred to the statement of P.W.6 Ahmad Yousaf stamp-vendor, who admits that if Mst. Jannat Bibi is placed among 10/20 women, he could not identify her. He then referred to the statement of Munawar Ahmad Patwari P.W.8 who admits that he had produced copy of Mutation No,925 Exh.PF and copy of Mutation No,969 Exh.PG as well as copies of extracts of register of record of rights which were secured by the Assistant Director (Investigation) vide memo. Exh.PN. He stated that Mutation No,925 Exh.PF was attested on 30-9-1987 when Said Ali was the Revenue Patwari of Mauza Burj Babal. He further stated that whenever the ownership is changed by means of mutation, entry to that effect is made in the column of Kaifyyat of the record of rights. He further admitted that Said Ali Patwari did not make any entry in the column of Kaifyyat of record of rights in respect of Mutation No,925, dated 30-9-1987 Exh.PF. He also referred to the statement of Allah Yar Lambardar who identified Mst. Jannat Bibi before the Revenue Officer at the time of attestation of mutation and further admitted that except Mst. Jannat Bibi, he did not know any other member of his family, including the name of her father as well as of her brother. By referring to the statements of the P.Ws. Referred above, he submitted that prosecution has failed to prove that Mst. Jannat Bibi had alienated any land in favour of Manzoor Husain and others vide sale-deed, dated 28-4-1987, for which Mutation No,925 was sanctioned on 30-9-1987. He argued vehemently that Mst. Jannat Bibi is being prosecuted for executing sale-deed in favour of Manzoor Husain and others, dated 28-4-1987 which she has denied with tooth and nail, that to prove the execution of said sale-deed on the part of Mst. Jannat Bibi, it was imperative on the part of the prosecution to get her thumb-impressions examined from the Handwriting Expert which exercise has not been done by the prosecution, as such an adverse presumption shall be drawn against the prosecution, that P.Ws. 4, 6, 8 and 11 did not know Mst. Jannat Bibi previously and it was for the first time that they happened to see her, as such their statements to the effect that they had seen Mst. Jannat Bibi executing sale-deed cannot be given any credence. He, thus, prayed that prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused/appellant Mst. Jannat Bibi.
10. So far as the accused Muhammad Munir Patwari (appellant of Criminal Appeal No,332 of 1998) is concerned, it is contended by his learned counsel that Mutation No,925 was sanctioned on 30-9- 1987 on the basis of sale-deed, dated 28-4-1987, that as per statement of P.W.8 Munawar Ahmad Patwari, Said Ali Patwari was posted in the said village on 30-9-1987 when the said Mutation was sanctioned, that he (P.W.8) further admits that Said Ali Patwari did not make any entry of this Mutation No,925 in the column of Kaifyyat of Register Haqdaran for the year 1986-87, as is evident from copy of the same Exh.PK, that it is the present accused/appellant Muhammad Munir Patwari who incorporated the said entry of Mutation No,925, dated 30-9-1987 on 11-5-1988, that as there ryas no entry regarding alienation of land by Mst. Jannat Bibi in favour of Manzoor Husain and others vide Mutation No,925, dated 30-9-1987, so he was justified in issuing copy of Fard Malkyyat regarding land owned by Mst. Jannat Bibi which she later on sold in favour of Muhammad Bakhsh and others vide sale-deed, dated 8-3-1988 Exh.HE that had the entry of Mutation No,925, dated 30- 9-1987 been incorporated in the Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1986-87 and Muhammad Munir accused/ appellant had issued copy of Fard Malkyyat of the same land, he could be held responsible for issuing a forged document. Admittedly, this is not factual position, as is evident even from the statement of P.W.8 Munawar Ahmad Patwari, that as such Muhammad Munir accused/appellant cannot be attributed any mala fide intention in issuing Fard Milkyyat. He, thus, submits that the impugned judgment has not been passed in accordance with law, as such the same be set aside.
11. Conversely, the impugned judgment has been supported by learned counsel for the State.
12. The only point which requires determination in this appeal is if Mst. Jannat Bibi had alienated the land in favour of Manzoor Husain and Zahoor Husain vide sale-deed, dated 28-4-1987, on the basis of which Mutation No,925, dated 30-9-1987 was sanctioned. To prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses, out of whom evidence of P.Ws.2,4,6,8 and 11 is relevant and has been discussed above. This alienation has been denied by Mst. Jannat Bibi. A perusal of the sale- deed, dated 28-4-1987 Exh.PD reveals that it bears the signatures of Mst. Jannat Bibi but does not bear her national identity card number. Since Mst. Jannat Bibi categorically denied the alienation of land in favour of Manzoor Husain and Zahoor Husain vide sale-deed, dated 28-4-1987, it was the duty of the prosecution to obtain her thumb-impressions and then send the same for comparison with her thumb-impression appearing on the sale-deed Exh.PD. This has not been done and as such the most authentic and corroborative piece of evidence is lacking in the instant case. So far as the ocular evidence of P.Ws. 2, 4, 6, 8 and 11 is concerned, that also clearly shows that none of the said P.Ws. Was previously known to Mst. Jaimat Bibi, as such they had the opportunity to see her only once and could not be said to have identified her properly. Thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to connect Mst. Jannat Bibi with the alienation of land through sale-deed Exh. PD, dated 28-4-1987. So far as question of involvement of Muhammad Munir Patwari is concerned, he simply issued Fard Malkyyat whereby land was sold in favour of Muhammad Bakhsh and others vide sale-deed Exh. PE, dated 8-3-1988. Admittedly, Muhammad Munir accused/appellant issued Fard Malkyyat on the basis of entries appearing in the Revenue Record. It has come on record that no entry regarding Mutation No,925, dated 30-9-1987 was made in the column of Kaifyyat of the Revenue. Record for the year 1986-87. In the absence of any such entry in respect of Mutation No,925, dated 30-9-1987, Muhammad Munir accused/ appellant was fully justified to issue Fard Malkyyat in respect of the property owned by Mst. Jannat Bibi. Thus, the alienation of land by Mst.
Jannat Bibi in favour of Muhammad Bakhsh and others vide sale-deed, dated 8-3-1988 is perfectly in accordance with law. No mala fide can be attributed to Muhammad Munir Patwari in issuing copy of Fard Malkyyat which was strictly in accordance with the entries appearing in the Revenue Record at the relevant time.
13. In the light of facts stated above, prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt. Accordingly, the appeals are accepted and judgment is set aside. The appellant Mst. Jannat Bibi is present on bail. Her bail bonds are discharged.
Muhammad Munir Patwari appellant is in jail. He is ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.