Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AMIN VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Ch. Iftikhar HussainSyed Athar Hasan Shah Bukhari,THE STATE,Syed Nadeem Haider
2003 P Cr
2003 P Cr. L J 1718
[Lahore]
Before Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J
MUHAMMAD AMIN ---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.618/B of 2003, decided on 6th May, 2003.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.409---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry-- Allegation against accused was that he had received not only illegal gratification from the public in connection with mutations, but also had mis-appropriated official fees for the same received by him from the people---Prosecution had conceded that all official fees received by accused stood deposited in Government Treasury---Accused had been departmentally punished by way of reduction in his pay--Question whether in such circumstances, accused could be held liable for alleged offence, needed serious consideration---Case of accused was covered under subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C. requiring further inquiry into his guilt---Accused was behind the bars for the last about one year and was a previous non-convict---Accused was entitled to bail, in circumstances.
Syed Athar Hasan Shah Bukhari for Petitioner.
Syed Nadeem Haider for the State.
ORDER
Muhammad Amin, the petitioner has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.9, dated 23-4-1999 under section 409, P.P.C. read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act II of 1947 registered with Police Station, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Vehari.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that he while posted as Revenue Patwari, Khanpur Circle had no: only received illegal gratification from the people in. respect of mutations but also misappropriated the official fees of these mutations and issued fake copies to them.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in that he has deposited all the mutation fees in the Government Treasury and this has so been mentioned in the order, dated 27-7-2002 recorded by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Multan on his bail petition; that none from the public beside the complainant and others had come forward to say that he had received illegal gratification from them in connection with discharge of his official duty; that he has already suffered sufficient punishment departmentally by way of reduction in-his pay; that he is behind the bars for the last about 11-1/2 months; and that he is previous non-convict.
4. Conversely the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition. However, the Circle Officer, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Vehari present in Court on query has confirmed that he has deposited in the Government Treasury the fees received by him from the public in connection with mutations.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
6. Allegedly he has received not only illegal gratification from the public in connection with the mutations but had also misappropriated 'the official fees, for the same; received from the people. It has been conceded by the State's side that all the official fees received by him in this connection stands deposited in the Government Treasury. There is with the petition the copy of order, dated 22-12-1999 recorded by A.C./Collector, Mailsi. The said fact is also mentioned in the same. He has been departmentally punished by way of reduction in his pays The question that in such circumstances, if he can be held liable for the alleged offence in this case needs serious consideration. So, his case is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. requiring further inquiry into his guilt.
7. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last about 11-1/2 months and a previous non-convict.'
8. In these circumstances, I find him entitled to bail. The petition is, therefore, accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Multan/trial Court.
H.B.T./M-1966/L Bail granted.