1994 P Cr (PLP)

S. 497(2)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 409/420/468/218/471/34-- Prevention of Corruption Act (1I of 1947), S.5(2)

Bail, grant of

Prosecution could not point out the names of persons to whom the accused allegedly has issued cheques from Zakat, Usher and Relief funds who had died or did not exist or. had received cheques on more than one occasion

All such cheques were also shown to have been issued under the directions of the then Chief Minister, Commissioner and Chairman, Zakat Committee, but none of them had been cited as accused in the case

Case against accused under the circumstances called for further inquiry and he was admitted to bail accordingly. A.Q. Halepota for Applicant. Fareed Ahmed Dayo for A.-G. for the State. The present applicant is involved in a case registered under section 409/420/468/218/471/34, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Act II of 1947 as Crime No.7/93 with the Police Station A.C.E. Umerkot. The allegation against the present applicant is that in his capacity as Assistant Commissioner, Umerkot, he has issued certain cheques to rain-affected persons by way of aid from Zakat, Usher and relief funds. It is further alleged that there are number of cheques issued by him to persons who had already died or did not exist; and that the amounts of the cheques were embezzled by the present applicant. Ten other persons are also cited as co-accused in the challan. Of all these persons, nine co-accused including three of the staff of the applicant have already been granted bail before arrest by this Court. The present applicant was arrested and sent up for trial. Bail application was moved before the trial Court, which was rejected hence this bail application. I have heard Mr. A.Q. Halepota, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Fareed Ahmed Dayo, the learned counsel for A.-G. for State. The learned counsel for the applicant has urged that this is a case under section 409, P.P.C. which is based on documentary evidence and the present applicant would not be able to defend his case if confined in jail. He has further submitted that the present applicant has to go through various documents, give instructions to his Advocate on the basis of documents and for that it would be proper that he be released on bail. The learned counsel has further submitted that there is no direct evidence connecting the present applicant with the commission of the alleged offence. All that the present applicant is alleged to have done is to issue cheques on the basis of the list given to him by the then Chief Minister, Sindh, the Commissioner of the Division, and Chairman of the Zakat Committee with the direction to issue the cheques to the persons named in the said list and also on the basis of applications forwarded to him duly endorsed by the above-said Authorities. The learned counsel has submitted that in these circumstances, the present applicant being a petty subordinate had to comply with the above directions and it was only in discharge of his duties that he issued such cheques to the named persons. These cheques were then encashed from the Banks and the present applicant is not shown to have at any stage, received the amount of any of these cheques. He has, therefore, submitted that this is a case of further enquiry. As against this, the learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the present applicant had issued the cheques even to the persons who had already died or did not even exist and also that he has issued more than one cheque in the names of same persons. However, the learned State counsel is unable to point out the names of those persons who already died or did not exist or in whose names the cheques were issued on more than one occasion. The facts of the case further show that all these cheques were issued under the directions of the then Chief Minister, Sindh, Commissioner and Chairman, Zakat Committee but none of them has been cited as accused in the I present case for the reasons best known to the prosecution. In these circumstances, I am of the view that this is a case which calls for further enquiry. Accordingly, I admit the present applicant to bail. He shall be released on bail on his furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.3,00,000 (Rupees three lacs) and P.R. bond in the like amount to be furnished to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N.H.Q./A-1465/K Bail granted.