Muhammad Arif Zaman vs State Ss — 2025 MLD 245 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Muhammad Arif Zaman VS State Ss. 420, 468 & 471---Prevention of Corruption act (II of 1947), S. 5---Cheating and dishonestly inducing someone to deliver property, forgery for the purpose of cheating, use of a forged document as genuine, criminal misconduct---appreciation of evidence---accused were charged for committing fraud by preparing forged, fictitious and fabricated agreement to sell and grabbing a sum of Rs. 10,50,000/- from the complainant---Record showed that appellant No.1, who was acting as revenue Patwari of the relevant area Chak recorded Rapt No.571 dated 18.06.2006 in Roznamcha Waqiati; entered mutation No.9981 on 18.02.2006 regarding land in favour of Proclaimed Offender; he also entered mutation No.11223 and mutation No.11256 on the statement of Proclaimed Offender in favour of one "MS"---Perusal of said rapt revealed that it was incomplete, vague as well as dubious because neither parentage of Proclaimed Offender nor amount of sale was mentioned in the same---Similarly, measurement of the land i.e. how much land had been sold and handing over of the possession had also not been mentioned in the same---With reference to said incomplete rapt, mutation No.9981 was entered in the relevant register on 18.02.2006 by appellant No.1 but it was never sanctioned/attested by any Revenue Officer and for the said reason same was of no value---Therefore, appellant No.1 was having full knowledge of incomplete/dubious feature/aspect of the rapt being its author but he used the same and on the basis of said incomplete/dubious rapt, knowingly entered mutation No.9981 on 18.02.2006 in favour of Proclaimed Offender, which remained unsanctioned/unattested and was of no value but even then, he knowingly entered mutation bearing No(s).11223 and 11256 on the statement of Proclaimed Offender on the basis of said unsanctioned/unattested mutation No.9981---Both mutation No(s).11223 and 11256 were subject matter of the case---Therefore, prosecution had established that appellant No.1 knowingly committed forgery for the purpose of cheating, used forged document as genuine and also being public servant committed "criminal misconduct"---appeal against conviction to the extent of appellate No. 1 was dismissed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Arif Zaman vs State Ss — 2025 MLD 245 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD