2005 PLP 1645 (YLR)

Abdul Aziz Khan Niazi for Petitioner. Sh. Arshad Ali for the State. Mian Muhammad Rashid for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 22nd April, 2004. Through the instant petition the petitioner seeks his pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.357 dated 28-10-2003 registered under sections 406/408/415/420/463/468/467/471/474, P.P.C. at police. Station, City, Sahiwal.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not involved in the instant case; that the case is frivolous and false and is based on mala fide; that the instant case was registered after the delay of more than one month and 19 days which has not been explained and casts doubt in the veracity of prosecution version; further submits 'that the recovery of .the amount from the customer was duty of the Sales Officers who had made false reports and the petitioner had nothing to do with the said fraud and petitioner only had been made an scapegoat; that the petitioner had filed a civil suit for rendition of account wherein stay order has been granted in favour of the petitioner. Lastly submits that the offence under sections 406/415/463, P. P. C. are not made out and remaining offences are bailable and do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. therefore, petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.

3. Conversely learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has strongly opposed the grant of bail on the ground that petitioner has misappropriated the huge amount and being servant of the complainant corporation had committed criminal breach of trust and being a Sales Manager of the company he was fully responsible to ensure the recovery of outstanding amount from the customers but by committing fraud he has misappropriated huge amount and caused huge loss to the complainant corporation.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record carefully. The record shows that petitioner was Area Manager of the Corporation namely Messrs Service Sales Corporation Private Ltd. at Sahiwal and a responsible officer whose duty was to ensure the recovery of outstanding amount from the customers but, according to the petitioner product of Service Sales Corporation were supplied to the customers through Area Sales Officers who also used to recover the amount from the customers and then that amount was to be deposited with the petitioner. 'The petitioner's contention is that it was Sales Officers who made false reports and misappropriated the amount collected from the customers but the facts remained that it was sole responsibility of the petitioner to give account for the sale proceeds to the complainant corporation and in order to counter this allegation petitioner has filed a suit for rendition of account against the Corporation wherein it has been alleged that he has not misappropriated any amount of the Corporation and it was only a matter of rendition of account because he was not the only person who was collecting the amount from the customers. There were other persons namely Kanwar Sajjad, Sales Officer, Malik Zulfiqar Ali, Junior Sales Officer who were responsible for collecting the amount from the different stations and to incorporate the same in the record. Sections 406/415/463, P.P.C. have been deleted whereas remaining sections are either bailable and non-cognizable. So in the peculiar circumstances, case against the petitioner seems to be tainted with mala fide and ulterior motive. As the petitioner was served with a notice to leave the job on 21-8-2003 wherein he was straightway ordered to hand over the charge to one Shafique Islam. Acoordingly the petition handed over the charge to said Shafique on 25-8-2003 but the record was not verified or properly checked in accordance with the procedure of the Firm which resulted into lodging of the instant F.I.R. The complainant Corporation has submitted his written statement to the suit tiled by the petitioner the detail of which reveals that petitioner owes the Corporation rendition of account' whereby according to the Corporation certain amount is outstanding against the petitioner for which detail scrutiny of the record is required. Keeping all these facts into consideration, case for confirmation of pre-arrest bail is made out. Accordingly I confirm the ad interim bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 16-4-2004 by this Court subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.15,00,000 (fifteen lac) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. N.H.Q./M-994/L Pre-arrest bail allowed.