Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 764 of 1977, decided on 22nd April, 1986.

----‑‑S. 5‑C‑‑Evidence, appreciation of‑‑Prosecution witnesses supported by documentary evidence and statement of vendors regarding payment of sale price by accused‑‑Accused failed to offer any reasonable explanation of such purchases nor adduced any defence evidence‑to rebut prosecution evidence‑‑Conviction under S. 5‑C of Prevention of Corruption Act maintained in circumstances.

‑‑‑S. 5‑C‑‑Sentence, reduction in‑‑Accused suffering agony of protracted trial, loss of service and forfeiture of property illegally acquired by him‑‑Sentence of one year's R.I. reduced to a fine of Rs.8,000‑in circumstances.

S.M. Latif Khosa for Appellant.

A.R. Sheikh for the State.

Date of hearing: 22nd April, 1986.

This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Multan, whereby he on 31‑8‑1977 convicted Muhammad Shaft appellant under section 5‑C of the P.C.A. 1947 and sentenced him to one year R.I. and a fine of Rs.2,000 or in default thereof to further R.I. for six months. It was also directed that the property illegally acquired by the appellant shall be forfeited to the Provincial Government.

2. The appellant was a Patwari posted at Layyah. The charge against him was that during his posting in Tehsil Layyah from 13‑10‑1964 to 21‑6‑1972, he, by improper means, purchased property worth Rs.82,406.50 in his own name and in the names of his father and brothers, and that the property so purchased by him was disproportionate to his known and ostensible sources of income. He pleaded not guilty.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses in all. Allah Bakhsh P.W.1, stated that the appellant had indulged in corruption and purchased agricultural land in village Paharpur Neshaib and village Kalruwala. He also purchased 2 or 3 houses in Layyah city. The witness had moved application Exh. P.W. 1/A against the appellant before the Anti‑Corruption Establishment wherein he detailed all the purchases made by the appellant. Abdul Khair P.W. 2 deposed that Muhammad Bukhah father of the appellant had purchased 10 acres of land in village Bait Wasava Kalruwala for 86.5,000 through registered sale‑deed. Haji Dost Muhammad P.W. 3 stated that the appellant had purchased 300 Kanals of agricultural land in Mauza Bait‑Wasava, Kalruwala. The witness had also identified the parties at the time of the attestation mutation of sale in favour of the appellant. Qadir Bukhah P.W. stated that the appellant had purchased agricultural land from Mss Amiran and Abdul Rehman vide mutation Exhs. P.B. and P.C. and that he was present at the time of attestation of mutation and identified the parties. He denied the suggestion that the land was actually purchased by the father of the appellant or that he (father) was in possession of the land. Abdul Rehman P.W. 5 stated that he alongwith his mother Mat. Amiran had sold agricultural land to the appellant and others for Rs.15,000 and that this sale price was paid by the appellant to them. Allah Ditta P.W. 6 was produced by the prosecution to stag that 86 Kanals of land was purchased from him by Muhammad Bukhsh father of the appellant but he stated that Muhammad Bukhsh who had purchased the land from him was not the father of the accused bow some other person. He was declared hostile and subjected to cross‑examination by the prosecutor. Muhammad Iqbal P.W. 7 is petition writer. He proved Exh. P.W. 7/A the correct copy of entry No. 45, dated 15‑7‑1967 in his petition register for the year 1967. Haji Muhammad Saeed P.W. 8 was Assistant Bills Clerk, office of Saddar Kanungo, Muzaffargarh. He produced service record of the appellant. According, to the relevant entries in the service book, the appellant was appointee and posted as Patwari at the monthly salary of Rs.35 on 17‑8‑1960. Or 4‑5‑1973 he was drawing salary of Rs.76 p.m. in the scale of Rs.75‑1‑85. 2‑115. He also proved Exh. P.W. 8‑A and B declaration forms filed by the appellant. He identified the signatures of the appellant. He further stated that Exh. P.W. 8/C and Exh. P.W. 8/D are the correct enclosure to these forms, Shams‑ud‑Din P.W. 9 was a registration clerk in the Registration Branch, Layyah. He stated that Exh. P.W. 9‑A and H were correct copies of registration Nos, 1836 and 526. Haq Nawaz P.W. 10 had prepared Fard Bash Exh. P.W. 10‑A with regard to the land of Muhammad Shafi situate in Mauza Paharpur Nashaib. He also state that the land revenue of this land was never charged since 1935. Wali Muhammad P.W, 11 stated that Muhammad Shafi appellant had purchase: house from him for Rs.500 through registered sale‑deed, copy of which: is P.W. 9/B. He stated that the sale price was paid to him by the appellant. Muhammad Bukhsh P.W. 12 had sold his house to the appellate for Rs.1;000 vide registered sale‑deed Exh. P.W. 9‑A. He stated that the sale price was given to him by the appellant. Muhammad Hussain P.W. 13 stated that Ahmad Raft brother of the appellant had purchased Bus No. .LED 6304 from him for Rs.20,000 and that Rs.8,000 were paid to him in cash and the remaining amount was to be paid in instalments of Rs.1,500' p.m. Ghulam Hussain P.W. 14 deposed that his wife Mst. Zubaida Begum had sold agricultural land to Muhammad Shaft, vide Mutations Nos. 990 and 996 copies whereof rare Exhs. P.D. and P.F. respectively. He stated that the sale price was paid to him by the appellant. Malik Mulazam Hussain S.I., P.W. 15 had conducted investigation. He took into possession register of petition‑writer Exh. P.W. 15‑C, Fard Bash Exh. P.W. 15‑E. Tashreeh Khatewar Exh. P.W.15‑F, Exh. P.W. 15‑H registered sale‑deed, Exh. P.W. 15‑L.M. copies of Khasra Girdawaris, Exh. 15‑A copy of Goshwara vide memorandum. Saeed Muhammad Baber Circle Officer P.W. 16 had recorded formal F. I. R.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. He stated that he did not remember whether he had purchased 101 Acres of land in village Bait Wasava Kalruwala for Rs.5,000 from Abdul Khair or that he had purchased 300 Kanals of agricultural land in Mauza Bait Wasava Kalruwala in the year 1970‑71. He also denied to have purchased 86 Kanals of land for Rs.775 in the names of his minor sons. He explained that out of 86 Kanals, 4 Kanals were purchased by his father and the rest of the land was purchased by one Muhammad Bakhsh (not his father). He, however, admitted the purchases of houses from Wall Muhammad and Muhammad Bukhah vide registered sale‑deeds P.W. 9‑A/B. He, stated, that the prices shown in the sale‑deeds were fictitious to defeat the pre‑emption suit which could be filed against him. He admitted to have purchased agricultural land from Zubaida Begum. He explained that this land is Darya Burd. He pleaded that the case was on account of party faction in Ilaqa and he has been falsely implicated. He produced Hameed Ullah Patwari in his defence. The defence witness stated that Muhammad Yar brother of Allah Bukhsh P.W. was a member of Advisory Committee of Consolidation proceedings relating to agricultural land situated in Bait Wasava Kalruwala. On the basis of original record of consolidation, the witness stated that Khasras Nos. 2327, 2328 and 3781 belong to the father of the appellant. The appellant tendered Exh. D.C. and Exh. D.B. copies of the orders of Civil Judge Layyah. Exh. D.E. copy of the mutation of partition and Exh. D.G. Patta of Abiana Chaha Jadid in his defence.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt; that the appellant had not purchased the property in the names of his father and brothers, etc. and that the property purchased by him was not disproportionate to his known sources of income. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court.

6. I have attended to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have also examined the entire evidence that has been produced, by the prosecution and the appellant. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. I find that the prosecution witnesses are quite independent, having no ill‑will against the appellant. The statements made by the prosecution witnesses are supported by the documentary evidence. The prosecution witnesses have successfully faced the test of cross‑examination. I do not see any legal infirmity in their statements. The prosecution has brought on record the property purchased by the appellant in his own name and in the names of his father and brothers, etc. The vendors of the transaction of sale, have stated that the sale prices were paid to them by the appellant. The prosecution has also brought on record the known sources of the income of the appellant. From the evidence on record, it has satisfactorily been proved that the property so purchased by the appellant was certainly disproportionate to his known sources of income. The appellant has not been able to give any reasonable explanation of the‑e purchases. The defence evidence does not rebut the prosecution case and its evidence. The arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contentions do not carry any weight. I am fully convinced that the property purchased by the appellant was disproportionate to his known sources of income and as such he has rightly been convicted by the learned trial Court.

7. This brings me to the question of sentence. I find that the appellant has suffered agony of protracted trial; that he has lost his service; that it has also been directed by the learned trial Court that the property illegally acquired by the appellant be forfeited to the Provincial Government and that the appellant had remained for sometime in jail after his conviction. In these circumstances, I feel inclined to alter the sentence of imprisonment of one year to a fine of Rs.8,000 or in default thereof six months' R.I. The fine of Rs.2,000 already imposed by the trial Court or imprisonment in default thereof and the direction for the forfeiting the property illegally acquired by the appellant are maintained. The appellant shall deposit Rs.10,000 with the learned trial Court within three months, failing which the learned Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, Multan shall issue warrants for, the arrest of the appellant and on his arrest, shall send him to jail for the execution of sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine.

S.G.D. ‑‑‑ Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.