GHULAM YASIN vs THE STATE

' SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.---This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 27- 5-2003 passed by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption Sargodha whereby he convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:-- (i) Under section 468, P.P.C.To undergo R.I. For 7 years with fine of Rs. 7000, in default of fine S.I. For 7 months; (ii)Under section 161, P.P.C.To undergo R.I. For 3 years with fine of Rs.3000, in default of fine S.I. For 3 months.

(iii)Under section 5(2)47, PCATo undergo R.I. For 7 years with fine of Rs.7000 and in default of fine S.I. For 7, months.

' These sentences were passed in case F.I.R. No.94 registered under section 468/471, P.P.C. On 28-5- 2001 at Police Station Katha Saghral.

2. The allegation against the appellant is that he while posted as Patwari entered a bogus Mutation No.1218, dated 29-6-2000.

3. The Investigating Officer after completion of investigation submitted the challan before the trial Court. A charge under sections 468/ 471, P.P.C. Was framed against the appellant. He denied the charge and claimed trial.

4. Contents that the applications submitted by Sultan Ahmed P.W.8 does not form part of the record. It has not been annexed with the challan as it contains allegations against the Tehsildar and the Assistant Commissioner; that Sahib Khan who alleged payment of Rs.40,000 for attestation of mutation to appellant and Tehsildar has not been arrayed as accused instead he appeared as P.W.9. Tehsildar appeared as P.W.2 whereas P.W.8 the complainant even in his statement in Court raised allegations against the appellant and Assistant Commissioner of receiving illegal gratification in sanctioning mutations in dispute; charge of connivance with beneficiary Sahib Khan could not succeed in this absence. DSP Legal recommended submission of challan against the Tehsildar but nothing was done and that the appellant has been made escape goat of misdeeds of the Revenue Officer and of the Assistant Commissioner.

5. Conversely, learned counsel for the State support the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption.

6. I have considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Admittedly, the complaint filed by P.W.8 has not been annexed with the record. It contains allegations against the Assistant Commissioner and the Revenue Officer. It is strange that the Assistant Commissioner against whom the allegation were levelled held an inquiry and his inquiry report, dated 13-4-2001 Ex.PB/2 has been relied upon in convicting the appellant. The Additional Deputy Commissioner General held an inquiry and found the Tehsildar involved in the occurrence as stated by P.W.10 Shahid Bashir Virk District Revenue Officer Khushab. P.W.8 states that he made the statement before the ADC(G) that the Revenue Officer P.W.2 is a corrupt officer. Muhammad Afzal DSP(L) Khushab in his opinion, dated 25-5-2000 addressed to Superintendent of Police recommended registration of case against the Revenue Officer as well but nothing has been done in that regard.

8. Signatures of Sahib Khan P.W.9 the beneficiary by the Revenue Officer P.W.2 have not been obtained to ascertain whether the same were genuine or otherwise. The appellant states that he was on leave due to accident of his mother and alleged mutation was sanctioned by the Revenue Officer. The fact for holding an inquiry by an Assistant Commissioner who was alleged to have received the bribery cannot be used against the appellant. Statement of P.W.2 the Revenue Officer, who has been found guilty in the investigation of the ADC(G) cannot be relied for the similar reasons. The beneficiary P.W.9 who has not been arrayed as one of the accused, he has signed the mutation Exh.PA. He concedes that he has paid a sum of Rs.40,000 to the appellant which was passed on to the Tehsidar P.W.2. He fully knew that he had not entered into any bargain of land with P.W.8. How the land is being transferred in his favour requires answer which has not been given by the Investigating Officer.

9. The investigation has been conducted in the most irresponsible manner. It appears that the investigation was directed to protect the revenue officer. Report of the DSP(L) annexed on the file of the challan file addressed to S.P. Opining involvement of the Revenue Officer P.W.2 has not been taken note of. How it has been disagreed is not revealed from the record. In bribery cases the petty officials always become target who have a very small share in the deal while officers who have major chunk of the bribery are always escaped on account of partial and faulty investigation, which is conducted always under the influence of the said officers.

10. The upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution has badly failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable bout. The evidence of P. Ws. Who were accused of the crime were cited as witness. Their evidence cannot be read against the appellant. Resultantly, this appeal succeeds and the appellant is acquitted of the charge. He be released forthwith, if not required in any criminal case.