1989 PLP 4369 (MLD)
HANIF AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4369 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Zubair, J |
| Parties | HANIF AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4369 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 4369 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Zubair, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4369 (MLD) (HANIF AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.A.Khadim for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 23rd July, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.409‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑F.I.R. was lodged against accused alongwith Sub -Divisional Officer, and Executive Engineer‑‑Sub Divisional Officer was later made witness against accused and case against higher officers was dropped‑‑Loss to Government was not conclusively caused by accused‑‑Case of further inquiry‑ Bail was granted in circumstances. Sh. Ehsan Ahmad for the State.
Judgment & Decree
M.A.Khadim for Petitioner. Sh. Ehsan Ahmad for the State. Date of hearing: 23rd July, 1989. The petitioner Hanif Ahmad, who is involved in a case under section 409, P.P.C. read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947) arising out of F.I.R. No.4 dated 3‑5‑1989, registered at Police Station Anti Corruption, Toba Tek Singh, seeks to be admitted to bail.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is behind the bars and is not needed for further inquiry/investigation and that the F.I.R. was lodged against the YEN as well as the SDO of the Department headed by the Superintending Engineer, but the police maliciously made the SDO as a witness and on the basis of evidence of the S.D.O. the petitioner has been charged, whereas the higher officers were let off by the Anti‑Corruption Police mala fide. He further submits that the department approved/sanctioned for the surfacing of road rupees five lacs but in the end only two lacs were supplied, which, shows that the work has to be of inferior quality and the petitioner has not embezzled any amount and certain material which was in excess was returned to the department. He also submits that the very stone used for surfacing the road was supplied on 16‑9‑1988 to the XEN by the contractor which was used by the petitioner and if there was some defect it was the responsibility of the XEN and the SDO who were made witnesses whereas the petitioner has been made scapegoat.
3. The learned counsel for the State assisted by the I.O. has opposed this application, but conceded that the SDO is mentioned as accused person in the F.I.R. but later on he was made a witness and on his report the challan has been submitted against the petitioner.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record brought by the I.O. I find sufficient substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has apparently been made scapegoat, because the S.D.O. has become a witness against whom there were also allegations. There is nothing on the record, which could conclusively prove that it was the petitioner alone, who has caused loss to the Government. As such, the case against the petitioner is of further inquiry. In view of this situation, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 (fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C. Toba Tek Singh. S.A/H‑135/L Bail granted.