1999 PLP 1089 (MLD)

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3583-B of 1998, decided on 10th July, 1998.

S.498

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S; 420/406/468/471

Pre-arrest bail-- Accused had been assigned a specific role in the F.I.R. who being an employee of the complainant company had misappropriated rupees one million, out of which he had made the part payment and promised to return the remaining amount, but failed to do so

Defence that the accused had no concern with the said amount nor his act amounted to misappropriation, could not be readily taken up while dealing with the matter of pre-arrest bail

Such defence could be made by the accused before the Investigating Agency

Pre-arrest bail was declined to accused in circumstances. Syed Shakir Ali Rizvi for Petitioner. A case under section 420/406/468/471, P.P.C. was registered against the petitioner vide F.I.R. No.243 dated 13-6-1998 at Police Station Ichhra, Lahore as he being an employee of Ali Gohar & Company (Pvt.) Ltd. i.e. complainant company had misappropriated an amount of rupees one million. However, through some negotiations, he returned Rs.3,36,665 and promised to return the remaining amount to liquidate his liability. However, he failed to do so, whereupon the present case was got registered by the complainant. The petitioner applied for pre-arrest bail which was dismissed vide order dated 6-7 1998 passed by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore for cogent reasons. The petitioner instead of surrendering to the custody of the Court has managed to escape to move a fresh petition for pre-arrest bail before this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegation regarding misappropriation of the amount in question is not only false but totally baseless. In this respect, it is contended that the money was to be collected from the customers to whom the firm had supplied goods and as such, being cashier, the petitioner had no concern with the aforesaid recovery. Secondly, it was contended that it was a dispute of civil nature and the offence of mis appropriation was not attracted to the facts, narrated in the F.I.R.

3. I have considered the foregoing submissions and have also gone through the material placed on record. The F.I.R. is clear enough to assign a role to the petitioner who being an employee of the complainant company had mis appropriated a huge amount of rupees one million, out of which he had returned the part payment as stated above and promised to return the remaining amount but on his failure to do so, the present case was lodged. The defence that the money represented the sale proceeds of the goods supplied to the customers, as' such, the petitioner has no concern with the said amount nor it amounted to mis appropriation, cannot be readily taken up while dealing with the case of pre -arrest bail. This type of defence can be given before the Investigating Agency in there is any substance in it. As such, the petitioner has no case for pre-arrest bail. His application was rightly dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. N.H.Q./A.278/L/ Petition dismissed.