' Petitioner was granted interim pre-arrest bail on 25-8-1998 in a case registered vide F.I.R. No,,12 of 1997, dated 31-7-1997, under section 420/468/ 471/161/109, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Police Station Anti-Corruption, Kasur. The prosecution story as given in the F.I.R. Registered on the statement of Muhammad Tufail complainant briefly stated is that complainant's father-in-law and maternal uncle Rehmat Ali owned 362 Kanals of land in Mauza Sahad, District Kasur. The said Rehmat Ali had no son. In the year 1984, Rehmat Ali mutated his entire land in favour of his daughter (complainant's wife) and complainant's mother (who was sister of Rehmat Ali) mutated the entire land in the name of complainant. In the year 1988, the Consolidation Patwari by telling Rehmat Ali that some land remained in his name, obtained his thumb-impressions on blank papers and thereafter, misappropriated the said land by transferring the same in the name of the petitioner Nazir Ahmad, who is a clerk in the Deputy Commissioner Office. It is also alleged that Bashir Patwari accepted Rs,40,000 as illegal gratification and promised that he will rectify the record. On complainant's application the matter was initially inquired into by a Circle Officer, Anti-Corruption and the Additional Director, Anti-Corruption, Lahore recommended that a case be registered against Bashir Ahmad, Patwari alone, whereafter the case was registered. After the registration of the case when the question of the bail of the said Patwari came up for consideration before the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, he directed that the role of Nazir Ahmad petitioner and the Patwari Consolidation at the relevant should also be probed into whereafter further evidence was collected against the petitioner. As per the Investigating Officer, Rehmat Ali and Mst. Rano Bibi mutated their entire land in the name of the complainant and his wife vide Mutation No,,1230, dated 9-1-1984; that Relimat was owner in twenty Khatas; that out of the said twenty Khatas only land situated in ten Khatas was transferred in the name of Muhammad Tufail complainant's wife and the land in ten Khatas was not transferred; that when co-accused Bashir, Patwari, came to know that in the remaining ten Khatas Rehmat Ali (an uncle of Muhammad Tufail complainant) still owned one hundred twenty Kanals superior land, he in league with the petitioner hatched a plan, the latter persuaded Rehmat Ali to accompany him to his house where Bashir Patwari was there, obtained his thumb-impression on blank papers which was later on converted into a resolution of consent in consolidation proceedings and on the basis of the said resolution he got mutated 45 Kanals of superior land in his own name. Muhammad Tufail complainant whose wife was beneficiary of the initial mutation was not aware of the remaining land in his father-in-law's name. He thought that the entire land had been mutated in his and his wife's name. It was only later on that he came to know about the fraud which had been committed and he gave an application to Anti-Corruption pursuant to which the case was registered. The Investigating Officer adds that during the investigation statements of the other signatories of the resolution, dated 24-6-1998, were also recorded wherein it is clearly stated that they had signed on blank papers which were subsequently converted into a consent resolution.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought confirmation of pre-arrest bail on the ground that the question of the alleged fraud has been settled by the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation), dated 6-8-1996, vide which application of Rehmat Ali against the resolution, dated 24-6-1988, was dismissed; that Muhammad Tufail has filed a declaratory suit against the petitioner qua the same subject-matter and the matter being civil in nature no criminal offence is made out. Further added, that there has been a delay of nine years in lodging the F.I.R. And that the petitioner was declared innocent during the investigation.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer for confirmation of the pre-arrest bail by submitting that no mala fides has been alleged by the petitioner against the complainant or the police; that the complainant and his maternal-uncle who are poor people have been robbed of their valuable land through the deceitful means by the petitioner who is a Clerk in the Deputy Commissioner Office and the Consolidation Patwari; that the petitioner has not honored the undertaking given by him on 6-10-1998 before this Court that he will surrender the land that he had obtained in favor of Rehmat Ali, the maternal-uncle of the complainant. He lastly contended that the petitioner's conduct disentitles him to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail inasmuch as he was allowed bail after arrest by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, till 22-1-1998 on the ground that the petitioner wanted to appear in the LL.B. Examination. He failed to appear on the a fore referred date where after his petition was dismissed and instead of surrendering before the Court he directly moved this Court after about eight months and that even today petitioner is not present.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5.
Admittedly the maternal-uncle of complainant, namely, Rehmat Ali, who transferred his entire land in the name of his daughter Mst. Kausar Bibi and whose sister Mst. Rano Bibi transferred her entire land in the name of his son Tufail who is complainant in this case are old people above seventy/eighty years of age. It appears that Rehmat Ali's land in ten Khatas could not be transferred in the name of complainant's wife Mst. Kausar Bibi (daughter of Rehmat Ali) on account of which an attempt was made by the complainant party to have the record rectified and there is evidence on record to the effect that co-accused Bashir Patwari accepted Rs,40,000 as illegal gratification. It is also in evidence that the so-called consent resolution was manoeuvred which deprived Rehmat Ali of valuable land. It is further on record that the petitioner persuaded Rehmat Ali to visit his house where Bashir Patwari was sitting and they procured his thumb-impressions on blank papers. Realising that the petitioner is a Government servant. On 6-10-1998 a query was made to him by this Court as to whether he was prepared to be straightforward and forth-right and he voluntarily made a statement that he would surrender 45 Canals of land in favor of Rehmat Ali which he had obtained through consolidation. It was on account of the said statement that the learned counsel for the complainant had conceded that if he did so he would not oppose the confirmation of bail. The case was adjourned to enable the petitioner to do the needful in terms of the undertaking given. Instead of honoring the undertaking given, the petitioner moved Criminal Miscellaneous No,,1881-M of 1998, 24-10-1998, praying that as the matter was pending in the Civil Court and the Revenue Court "he may not be required to transfer any land in dispute to Rehmat Ali who is one of the defendants in the civil suit filed by the complainant and whose rights are yet to be determined by the Court of competent jurisdiction. On 6-10-1998 this Court never directed the petitioner to surrender the land which he had allegedly obtained through deceit.
' It was on a Court query that he volunteered to transfer the land in question in favour of Rehmat Ali.
After more than two weeks, petitioner has filed the application (Criminal Miscellaneous No,,1881/M of 1998) praying that he may not be required to transfer the land. This application besides being an afterthought is an attempt to wriggle out from his earlier commitment. The statement made by the petitioner, on the last date of hearing, prima facie, lends credence to the prosecution story. The conduct demonstrated by the petitioner in not honouring the undertaking given also disentitles him to any discretionary relief. There is no allegation of mala fides against the complainant or the police. I, therefore, see no merit in this application which is hereby dismissed.