| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 4903 = 2026 SLD 4903 = 2026 YLR 1476 |
Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi
Criminal Appeals Nos. 525, 526, 520 and 534 of 2024, decided on 25th February, 2025.
Presented By: Sadiq Mahmud Khurram, J
 Muhammad Mansha v. The State 2018 SCMR 772 and Najaf Ali Shah v. The State 2021 SCMR 736 rel.       Amjad Pervaiz for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 525 of 2024).       Taimoor Aslam Khan for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 526 of 2024).       Muhammad Asim for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 2024).       Asad Abbasi for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 534 of 2024).       Sohail Iqbal, District Public Prosecutor for the State.       Talat Mahmood Zaidi for the Complainant.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 525, 526, 520 and 534 of 2024, decided on 25th February, 2025.
Presented By: Sadiq Mahmud Khurram, J
 Muhammad Mansha v. The State 2018 SCMR 772 and Najaf Ali Shah v. The State 2021 SCMR 736 rel.       Amjad Pervaiz for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 525 of 2024).       Taimoor Aslam Khan for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 526 of 2024).       Muhammad Asim for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 2024).       Asad Abbasi for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 534 of 2024).       Sohail Iqbal, District Public Prosecutor for the State.       Talat Mahmood Zaidi for the Complainant.
RAJA SHAHID AHMED---Appellant
VERSUS
The STATE and another---Respondents
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 420, 468, 471, 409
Law: Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)
Section: 5
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 420, 468, 471 & 409---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5---Cheating, forgery, misconduct and criminal breach of trust---Appreciation of evidence---Analysis of mutations through laboratory---Inconsequential---Accused were charged that they, in connivance with the Revenue Department, got transferred the land of the complainant in their names---Appellants entered their names as vendees in the disputed mutations, with the active connivance of the other appellants, despite the fact that neither the vendor (since deceased) had sold any land to the appellants nor the said appellants had any title over the said land---At the very outset, it had been noticed that both the disputed mutations were sent to the Forensic Science Agency for analysis---According to the report of the Forensic Science Agency, it could not be determined that the names of the appellants had been inserted subsequently---Complainant of the case also admitted during cross-examination that he had not assailed the report of the Forensic Science Agency---The very report of the Forensic Science Agency smashed the whole foundation of the prosecution case against the accused/appellants when it was determined that the names of the appellants had not been inserted subsequently in the disputed mutations, which was the sole allegation levelled by the complainant of the case against the appellants---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in the circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 420, 468, 471 & 409---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5---Cheating, forgery, misconduct and criminal breach of trust---Appreciation of evidence---Inordinate delay in challenging the mutations---Adverse presumption---Accused were charged that they, in connivance with the Revenue Department, got transferred the land of the complainant in their names---Prosecution case was that the vendor of the land which was sold through the disputed mutations was MA ; however, according to the Death Certificate, the said MA died on 01.04.2021, and it was only after the death of the said vendor that the complainant of the case submitted the application for the registration…