1986 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984), S.5‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.409/420/467/468/511‑ Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5‑‑Bail, grant of Delay in trial‑‑Accused not in jail for continuous period of more than one year‑‑Grant of bail on ground of delay occasioned in trial before delay had reached that point of time given in S. 497(1) proviso (3), held, would be against clear provisions of law and would be without jurisdiction. S.M. Nasim for Petitioner. N.A. Ghazi, P.P. for the State. Charge against accused‑petitioner Muhammad Hussain is that while employed as Clerk in Accounts Branch of the Cantonment Board, Lahore he had (as found by the handwriting expert) made entries in his own hand in the Cheques Nos.850896, dated 20‑8‑1984 and 850899, dated 25‑8‑1984, respectively for sums of Rs.1,81,170.45 and Rs.1,86,000 bearing the forged signatures of Executive Officer, Cantonment Board with Qureshi Enterprises run by Asad Islam Qureshi shown as the drawee, as a result of which said amounts were credited in the Account No.5028 of said Asad Islam and were subsequently withdrawn by an untraced culprit through seven cheques bearing the forged signatures of Asad Islam.

2. The first contention of the learned counsel for the accused petitioner in this bail application is that the mere fact that the accused had in his capacity .as the clerk of Cantonment Board made entries in the said two cheques does not show that accused‑petitioner had forged the said two cheques as according to the very allegations of the prosecution, the said two cheques had been signed by some other untraced culprit /culprits.

3. I have considered the point raised but am afraid I am unable to accept the same in view of the special circumstances of this case. The said two cheques were made not on the leaves of genuine cheque book of the Executive Officer, Cantonment Board but on leaves from a supurious cheque book which had been got printed by the untraced culprits from some press. There is no explanation how this parallel cheque book came into the hands of the accused‑petitioner and in the circumstances, the factum of the accused having made entries on two leaves (blank cheques) from the said cheque book prima facie shows A that in making false entries in the said two cheques, the accused petitioner had, common intention with the untraced culprits who forged the signature of the Executive Officer on the said two cheques and subsequently fraudulently withdrew the said sums from the account of Qureshi Enterprises by means of forged cheques. Furthermore, according to investigation by Muhammad Ashraf Bajwa. Inspector F.I.A., no bill of Qureshi Enterprises was being processed in the Cantonment Board and no previous papers of the said concern were under action in the office of the Cantonment Board and no order of Executive Officer of Cantonment Board accepting any bill of the said concern then existed in the office of the said Board authorising the accused‑petitioner to prepare the said cheques. That circumstance further appears to show that the accused had acted in concert with the unknown culprits who had got these two cheques prepared from the accused‑petitioner, forged signature of Executive Officer on them, deposited them in the account of Qureshi Enterprises and subsequently on receipt of sums of said cheques in the account of Qureshi Enterprises from the account of Cantonment Board, got the said sums withdrawn by means of seven forged cheques. There are, therefore, reasonable grounds to believe that accused‑petitioner Muhammad Hussain is guilty of offences under sections 467 and 409, P.P.C. or at any rate offences under sections C 467 / 109 and 409/109 , P.P.C. A clear embargo has been placed in subsection (6) of section 5 of Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, against grant of bail to such persons. The accused‑petitioner cannot, therefore, be granted bail in this case on the above ground advanced by the learned counsel.

4. Learned counsel has next contended that ell other accused in this case are on bail and, therefore, the accused should also be granted bail. In my opinion, however, the case of each one of the accused has to be dealt with in accordance with its own facts. The facts which related to the accused who had been granted bail and those relating to the accused‑petitioner are not similar. The accused Hameed Shah who filed Bail Application No.394/84 was granted bail on 12‑12‑1984 on the ground that it appeared that he had been deceived into accepting employment with a cheat and forger who used the said accused as cats‑paw to get forged cheques, drawn on the account of Qureshi Enterprises, encashed, while Nazir Hussain and 2 others, employees of the bank who filed Bail Application No.224/85 and against whom allegation was that they had passed the forged cheques although there were indicati6ns on them of their being forged, had been granted bail on 1‑10‑1985 because firstly there were circumstances disclosed in record which appeared to militate against their having guilty conscience in the matter and secondly that possibility, of their having merely made a mistake in considering the signature of Asad Islam on cheques to correspond with his specimen signatures on his specimen signature card did not prima facie stand excluded. The question of principle of consistency in the grant of bail does not, therefore, stand attracted to the facts circumstances of the case of petitioner and he cannot be granted bail simply because other accused in this case have already been granted.

5. Learned counsel for the accused‑petitioner has next contended that the trial of the accused is not likely to take place in near future and for that reason too the accused‑petitioner should be granted bail. I have already held in Bail Application No. 299/85 Muhammad Sharif v. State that previously bail could i.e granted on the basis of a relatively small period of delay in the conclusion of the trial but IIIrd proviso to subsection (1) of section 49.7, Cr.P.C. added by Code of Criminal Procedure (Second Amendment) Ordinance (1X of 1979) has fixed the period of delay qualifying a person to grant of bail at a continuous period of more than one year in case of offences not punishable with death and, therefore, grant of bail to an accused person on the ground of delay occasioned in his trial before the said delay has reached that I point of time, would obviously be against the said clear provision of law and would be without jurisdiction. Muhammad Ashraf Bajwa, Inspector, F.I.A., states that the accused was arrested somewhere in June/July, 1985. The learned counsel for the accused‑petitioner is not in a position to controvert the said assertion of the Investigating Officer. Obviously, therefore, the accused‑petitioner has not been in detention in jail for a continuous period of more than one year since the date of his arrest. He cannot, therefore, be granted bail on the ground that his trial has not concluded by this time. For the foregoing reasons, I reject this bail application. S.A. Application dismissed.