1986 PLP 2678 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 2678 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Riaz Ahmad, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 2678 (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 1986 PLP 2678 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Riaz Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 2678 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Ghayyas‑ud‑Din for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 17th September, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Emigration Ordinance (XVII of 1979), Ss.17 & 22 Passports Act (XX of 1974), S.6‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused allegedly misappropriating huge amounts received by him from, different persons on pretext of sending them abroad for employment‑‑Accused contending that they were just labourers and business was being carried by absconding accused‑‑Accused were behind bars since two months and investigation was not completed as sanction for prosecution was awaited Accused granted bail in circumstances. M. Shad Saleem for the state.
Judgment & Decree
F.I.A. conducted an enquiry as a result of which a case under the provisions of section 17 read with section 22 of the Immigration Act as under section 6 of the Passport Act was registered against the petitioner and one Mushtaq.
2. The allegations against the petitioners are that they received huge amounts from various persons on the pretext of sending them abroad and for securing them in employment. It was alleged that the petitioners were not authorised to do so and they misappropriated the money and also did not send the complainant and other witnesses abroad. During the investigation of this case two witnesses have appeared before the F. I. A. to assert that in their presence the money was paid to the petitioners and the co‑accused Mushtaq who is absconding.
3. On behalf of the petitioners it is urged that they are labourers and in fact the business was being carried out by Mushtaq absconding accused and the petitioners had nothing to do with the commission of offence. It is further alleged that in fact the petitioners have also been cheated and have also to recover the amount from Mushtaq and absconding co‑accused.
4. The petitioners were allowed interim bail by the learned Special Judge which was recalled on 17‑7‑1986 and since then the petitioners are in jail. The investigation has not so far been completed because the sanction from the Interior Ministry is awaited. In these circumstances, I am inclined to admit the petitioners to bail provided they furnished security in the sum of Rs.20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand only), each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/ Duty Magistrate, City Lahore. H.A.K Bail granted.