Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Malik GULZAR AHMAD VS Respondent: THE STATE
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Gulbaz Khan Title: Malik GULZAR AHMAD vs THE STATE Case No.: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2828-B of 1982 Date of Judgment:1982-10-19 Reported As: 1983 P Cr. L J 1692 Result: Interim bail confirmed
Judgment ORDER The allegation against the petitioner is that he in collusion with S. D. Os. Sub-Engineers, Storekeepers and Contractors, misappropriated Government funds to the tune of lacs of rupees, by forging the documents regarding the purchase of spare parts of tube-wells. The case was registered under section 409, P. P. C, read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the raid was conducted on the night between 3/4-8-1982 for checking the stores and forty per cent. Of the articles purchased were found in the store and if proper checking had been carried out, the entire spare parts would have been accounted for that the petitioner was not Store Keeper and it was the duty of the Store Keeper to keep a correct account; that Sub-Engineer worked as Supervisor and the petitioner had no concern with the physical possession of the store. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State was asked as to when the challan was likely to be submitted and he replied that technical report was being awaited and it might take a month or so. 4. The case was registered on 3-8-1982. A period of more than two and a half months has elapsed and the challan has not been submitted so far. It is a matter of accounts, which requires thorough investigation. The petitioner should also be given opportunity to account for the spare parts and to rebut the allegations levelled against him in the F. I. R. There is no A possibility of the absconsion of the petitioner as he is a public servant an posted as Executive Engineer. Since the matter pertains to the record, there is no question of tampering with the prosecution evidence. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, the interim bail allowed to the petitioner is confirmed.