YLR 2003

2003 PLP 2395 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No.2642/B of 2002 decided on 29th November, 2003.
Honorable Judges
Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2003 PLP 2395 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J
Parties MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 2395 (YLR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 2395 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ch. Iftikhar Hussain, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 2395 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Mian Arshad Latif for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.409

Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947) S.5

Bail, grant of

Allegations against the accused were that he and his co accused while they were posted at P.R. Centre had misappropriated 69.360 M. Tons of wheat belonging to the Food Department-- F. I. R. had been lodged after a delay of about one year

Accused had moved application to Director Anti-Corruption wherein he had mentioned that he was neither joined in the investigation nor was heard before sanction of judicial action against him and so injustice had been caused to him

Director Anti Corruption, on the said application, had ordered to reopen the matter despite the accord of sanction for judicial action against the accused

In view of all the facts particularly the registration of two separate F.I.Rs. at the instance of the accused against the co-accused and the members of the supervising team constituted by the Department to supervise despatches of wheat stocks lying in open at the said P.R. Centre alleging misappropriation of wheat stocks against them and re-opening of the matter on accused's request by the Director Anti Corruption, case against the accused called for further inquiry into his guilt-- Accused was granted bail in circumstances. Mirza Muhammad Zulfiqar and others v. The State and others 2000 SCMR 1072; Saeed Ahmad v. The State 1996 SCMR 1132; Wasi Haider v. The State 2002 MLD 1659 and Anwar Zada v. The State through F.I.A., S.B.C., Karachi 2001 PCr.LJ 730 ref. Iftikhar Ibrahim Qureshi for the State.

Judgment & Decree

Muhammad Iqbal petitioner has moved the instant petition seeking after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 31 of 1999, dated 18-3-1999 under section 409, P.P.C. read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act No.II, 1947 registered with Police Station A.C.E., Multan.

2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that he and his co-accused Mehr Allah Dad, Food Grains Inspector when they were posted at P.R. Centre, Shujaabad, have misappropriated 69.360 M. Tons wheat belonging to the Food Department. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that there is unexplained delay of more than one year in the registration of the case and the same itself constitutes a valid ground for having further inquiry into his guilt; that Ch. Muhammad Aslam, District Food Controller, Multan vide his Endst. No.4878/EC, dated 27-6-1998 has constituted a team comprising of Alamgir Khan, A.F.C. (Convenor), Ghulam Sarwar Bhatti, F.G.I. (Member), Sh. Muhammad Ajmal, Junior Clerk (Member), Rana Zulfaqar Ali, F.G.S. (Member) for the supervision of despatches of wheat stocks lying in open/Gunjees at P.R. Centre, Shujaabad, and he had directed them (team) to seal gates of the godown at the closure of the work and de-seal the same in the morning to start the work of despatches of wheat and daily submit him report in respect of the same; that on 22-10-1998 he had checked the stock and found it correct and he handed over the stock report to Mehr Allah Dad, and thereafter he on the same day had acute appendicitis pain and due to the same he was operated upon in Faisal Hospital and under the advice of the Doctor, he remained on bed rest up to 26-10-1998 to 31-10-1998; that the stock was in the supervision of Mehr Allah Dad, Food Grains Inspector, and he may be responsible for the misappropriation of the same, if any, and not he; that he when came to know of the shortage of the wheat stock on 16-6-1998 had lodged F.I.R. No.359 of 1999 under section 409, P.P.C. with Police Station City, Shujaabad against Mehr Allah Dad and others and as the Government servants were involved in the same so, he about the same got registered another F.I.R. No.46 of 1999 under section 409, P.P.C. read with section 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act No. II; 1947 with Police Station ACE, Multan, on 31-10-1999; that he has moved the application to the Director, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Punjab, Lahore in which he has mentioned that he was not heard before the sanction of judicial action against him and it was against all norms of justice and on the same he has directed to re-open the matter and this heavily suggests that the allegation against him needs further probe; that the entire record is in the possession of the department, so there is no chance of his tampering with the same; that he is behind the bars and so is not wanted for any purpose of the investigation; 'and that he is, previous non-convict. In support of bail plea reliance has been placed upon the case of Mirza Muhammad Zulfiqar and others v. The State and others 2000 SCMR 1072, Saeed Ahmad v. The State 1996 SCMR 1132, Wasi Haider v. The State 2002 MLD 1659 and Anwar Zada v. The State through F.I.A., S.B.C., Karachi', 2001 PCr.LJ 730 Karachi.

3. Conversely the learned State Counsel assisted by the Assistant Director (Legal), A.C.E., Multan has opposed the application on the grounds that he is named in the FJ.R.; that he had misappropriated huge quantity of wheat belonging to the Food Department; that there is sufficient material on record to connect him with the alleged crime; and that the offence under section 409, P.P.C. is covered under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

4. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced from both the sides with the help of the available record.

5. As said above the allegation as contained in the F.I.R. is that he and Mehr Allah Dad, Food Grains Inspector, when they were posted at P.R. Centre, Shujaabad had misappropriated 69.360 M. Tons wheat belonging to the Food Department.

6. The said offence as appears from the F.I.R. has been committed in the year 1998. The report regarding the same has been made on 18-3-1999 so, apparently, there is a delay of about one year in the same.

7. There is with the petition the copy of F.I.R. No.359 dated 16-6-1999 registered under section 409, P.P.C. with Police Station City Shujaabad on his written application. In the same he has alleged that Mehr Allah Dad, Food Grains Inspector as Incharge P.R. Centre, Shujaabad, in connivance with the team appointed by the District Food Controller for supervision of dispatches of wheat stocks lying in open/Ganjees at P.R. Centre, Shujaabad, had misappropriated the wheat belonging to the department.

8. It may be relevant to mention here that the copy of Order of the District Food Controller, Multan has been appended to the petition. The same was endorsed to Deputy Director Food, Multan, Division Multan and others vide No.4878/CE dated 27-6-1998. According to the same a team comprising of the aforesaid officials of the department was appointed for the supervision of dispatches of the wheat stocks lying in open/Ganjees at P.R. Centre, Shujaabad. He subsequently on 13-10-1999 had got registered F.I.R. No.46 with A.C.E., Multan against Alamgir Khan, A.F.C. and others including Mehr Allah Dad, Food Grains Inspector, in respect of the same matter. In the same he has reiterated his stand that Mehr Allah Dad, Food Grains Inspector and the members of the aforesaid team in connivance with each other had misappropriated the wheat as well as bags of belonging to the department. There is also with the petition the copy or application from him moved to Director Anti Corruption, Punjab Lahore. In the same he has mentioned that he was neither joined in the investigation nor was heard before sanction of judicial action against him and so injustice has been caused to him.

9. The learned State Counsel has conceded that on the said application the Director, Anti-Corruption, Punjab has ordered to reopen the matter despite the accord of sanction for the judicial action against him. His plea is also that on 22-10-1998 be had prepared wheat stocks report and had handed over it to the Incharge of the said Centre and in the same he has mentioned that the stock was intact and correct according to the record.

10. In view of all these facts, particularly the registration of case F.I.R No.359 of 1999 with Police Station City, Shujaabad and F.I.R. No.46/99 with A.C.E.. Multan at his instance against Mehr Allah Dad, Food Grains Inspector and the members of the aforesaid team and re-opening of the matter on his request by the Director, Anti Corruption, Punjab, the case against him needs further probe as regards his guilt in the matter. The same therefore, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Furthermore, he is behind the bars and stated to be previous non-convict. In these circumstances, he cannot be refused relief of ball merely for the reasons that wheat of huge amount belonging to the Food Department was misappropriated. In this regard, reference can be made to the case of Mirza Muhammad Zulfiqar and others v. The State and others 2000 SCMR 1072, Saeed Ahmad v. The State 1996 SCMR 1132, Wasi Haider v. The State 2002 MLD 1659 Karachi and Anwar Zada v. The State through F.I.A., S.B.C., Karachi 2001 PCr.LJ 730 Karachi.

11. I, therefore, accept this petition and admit him to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge Anti Corruption, Multan/Trial Court. S.M.A.H./M-1669/L Bail granted.