GHULAM MUSTAFA Versus State

MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.-- -The relevant facts of the case are as follows:-- "that case F.I.R. No.507 of 1995 for offences under sections 466/ 420, P.P.C. read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was registered at Police Station, Hasilpur, on 19-10-1995 at the instance of the then Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur. The allegation against the petitioner was that he caused fabrication in the death register and thereafter got agricultural land mutated in his favour on the basis of fake document. On 2-10-1996, while hearing bail application of the petitioner, the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Bahawalpur, observed that the case should have been registered against the petitioner by the Anti-Corruption Establishment. Thereafter, pursuant to the order passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, the case was registered against the petitioner, relating to the same allegations at Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Bahawalpur, vide F.I.R. No.29 dated 3-12-1998 for offences under sections 466/467/468/471/420, P.P.C. read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. After completion of investigation, the petitioner was sent up to face trial before the Court of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Bahawalpur. The learned trial Court framed the charge against the petitioner on 16-1-2002 and started recording prosecution evidence. After recording the statements of six P.Ws. the learned trial Court recorded the statement of the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. on 19-2-2004. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court instead of acquitting or convicting the petitioner passed an order on 14-4-2004, whereby it was held that the learned trial Court lacked jurisdiction to try the case and was not in a position to acquit or convict the petitioner. It was further directed that the Challan be returned to the prosecution branch for further submission to the concerned quarter having jurisdiction in the matter. Hence, this petition.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that his brother Muhammad Yaqoob died on 18-5-1995 but he falsely entered the date of death as 21-5-1995 in the death register and on the basis of said false entry he got the land of the his brother Muhammad Yaqoob transferred in his own name.

3. Out of the six witnesses recorded by the learned trial Court P.Ws. 1 and 2 stated nothing against the petitioner, while P.W.3 stated that he was serving as Chowkidar during the period 1994/95. The accused entered date of death of his brother as 21st. He was not able to tell month or year. P.W.4 simply stated that he and one Saeed were taken before the Tehsildar by the petitioner where their thumb-impressions were obtained. He further stated that later on he came to know that the petitioner got the land of his brother mutated in his name. During cross-examination he explained that his thumb-impression and that of Saeed were obtained on blank papers by the Patwari. He did not state any word' about the statement made by him or by Saeed, who was not produced during trial. Abdul Sattar P.W.5 stated that the petitioner wrongly entered the date of death of his brother as 21-5-1995 instead of 18-5-1995. He did not state that the entry was made within his presence and why he did not report the matter to the authorities. Mumtaz Ahmad, Patwari, appeared as P.W.6 and stated that he had entered the mutation in favour of the petitioner in the lifetime of Muhammad Yaqoob. This witness was not cross-examined by the prosecution in other words his statement was believed to be correct by the prosecution. The effect of unchallenged statement of P.W.6 is that the prosecution case has fallen on the ground.

4. The analysis of the evidence shows that the prosecution is not in possession of reliable incriminating evidence against the petitioner. The petitioner had been suffering since 15-10-1995. Interestingly, the case was registered by the Anti-Corruption Establishment against the petitioner on the direction of the learned trial Court. After framing charge against the petitioner, recording six prosecution witnesses and statement of the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. the learned trial Court strangely concluded that it lacked jurisdiction and directed for submission of challan against the petitioner before the Court of ordinary jurisdiction. As already noted above, the petitioner had been suffering since 15-10-1995, the trial of the petitioner by the Court of ordinary jurisdiction would not improve the prosecution case and it would be sheer waste of time.

5. In the above noted circumstances, I allow this petition and set aside the order dated 14-4-2004 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Bahawalpur. The proceedings pending against the petitioner in lieu of case F.I.R. No.29, registered at Police Station A.C.E. Bahawalpur, on 3-12-1998, are hereby quashed.

N.H.Q./G-11/L ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision petition allowed.