2003 P Cr (PLP)
FATEH MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FATEH MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 P Cr (PLP) (FATEH MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Pervaiz Inayat Malik for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 409
Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)
Allegation against the accused who was Patwari of Halqa concerned was that in his official capacity he received amount of agricultural tax for the relevant year from inhabitants, much more than the amount fixed by Revenue Department, but deposited less amount with the Government Treasury and misappropriated rest of the amount
Prima facie, circumstances were sufficient to show the involvement of the- accused in the commission of the offence falling within, the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Bail was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Mian Abdul Qayum Anjum for the State. Asim Iftikhar, Circle Officer. Date of hearing: 3rd February, 2003. Seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R, No.16 of 2002 dated 1-4-2002 under section 409, P.P.C. read with section 5(2), P.C.A., 1947 registered at Police Station A.C.E., District Sargodha.
2. In brief the allegation against the petitioner is that he being Patwari Halqa Chak No.52-A.N.B. in his official capacity received Rs.12,22,000 as agricultural tax for the year 1997-98 from the inhabitants of the statedly this amount was much more than the amount fixed by the Revenue Department vide Notification dated 22-10-1997. Allegedly the petitioner deposited Rs.22,085 (amount shown in the notification) with the Government Treasury and misappropriated the rest of the amount.
3. Bail is sought on the 'grounds that the allegations against the petitioner is absolutely false and baseless; that the petitioner had already deposited Rs.1,19,739 before the registration of present case; that there is no documentary evidence about the misappropriation of the amount; that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than six months and, there is no progress in the trial. Conversely learned counsel for the State while supporting the impugned order vehemently opposed this bail application.
4. Heard. File perused.
5. The fact that the petitioner in his official capacity deceitfully received excessive amount under the pretext of agricultural tax for the year 1997-98 from the inhabitants of Chak No.52-A and misappropriated the same stands established from the record of departmental inquiry as well as from the admitted fact that the petitioner had deposited the defalcated amount in the Government Exchequer before the registration of present case. Prima facie the said circumstances are sufficient to show the involvement of the petitioner for the commission of heinous offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition having no merits, stands dismissed.
6. Since the challan in this case has already been submitted, the trial Court is directed to conclude the matter within six months. H.B.T./F-165/L Bail application dismissed.