1993 PCr (PLP)

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.435/380/409

Bail, grant of-- Accused stood involved inter alia in an offence punishable under S.409, P.P.C. which did not fall outside the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Bail was refused to accused in circumstances. Malik Abdul Sattar Chughtai for Petitioner. Zaeemul Farooq Malik, Asstt. A.-G. with Abdul Khaliq Khan for the State. Mian Muhammad Latif petitioner seeks bail in case F.I.R. No.143/92 registered against him at Police Station Liaqat 4bad (Township), Lahore, for the alleged commission of offences punishable under section 435/380/409, P.P.C.

2. The allegations as levelled by one Ahsan Javed, a Superintendent of Central Excise and Land Customs at Kot Lakhpat are that the Excise and Customs Department had taken into custody 122 rolls of floating papers from Messrs Pak Paper Board Mills, Kot Lakhpat, on account of violation of the relevant laws and had entrusted the same on Superdari to the petitioner who also runs a factory in the same vicinity; that the petitioner misappropriated 36 such rolls which matter was being inquired into and that on 17-7-1992 he was informed at about 7-30 a.m. by a Constable of the Excise and Customs Department that fire had broken out in the factory of the petitioner and further that the fire-brigade was busy extinguishing the said fire. He had further claimed that the above-mentioned rolls of paper lying in the petitioner's factory had got burnt and that he strongly suspected that Muhammad Latif had set the said rolls on fire to conceal the misappropriation of the floating paper in question and had thus caused a loss of Rs.4,00,000 to the Government.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that one Azhar Butt, the Circle Inspector of Customs who was also alleged involved in the said misappropriation had since been exonerated by the department; that the department had lodged this F.I.R. by twisting an accident into a conspiracy only as a counter-plan to the claim of the petitioner for the rent of the premises used by the department for storing the paper in question in respect of which the petitioner had already instituted a civil suit; that there was no question of the petitioner setting the said paper on fire because the petitioner was residing on the upper storey of the premises in question alongwith his family and could not have taken a risk of burning down not only the factory but even his family only to screen his alleged misappropriation and finally that the offence in question did not fall within the prohibitory clause.

4. The contention of the learned counsel that Azhar Butt, Inspector had since been exonerated is not correct as the Assistant Collector of Customs who had been summoned by me stated that the said Inspector had since been dismissed from service on 6-12-1992 in connection with the misappropriation in question. The suit for the recovery of the rent from the department had been filed by the petitioner after the proceedings had been initiated in respect of the misappropriation on 6-7-1992 and the inquiry had been commenced by the department in this connection. About the risk taken by the petitioner regarding his factory, the learned counsel had informed me, on my inquiry, that the factory of the petitioner was not insured. This contention is also being falsified by a certificate issued by Arshi and Associates and which certificate stands appended with this petition and from which it transpires that the factory of the petitioner was insured against loss.

5. The mere fact that an offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause did not mean that an accused person became automatically entitled to the concession of bail. Needless to reiterate that the conduct of the accused was always a relevant factor in allowing or disallowing bail even in such like offences. Nevertheless the petitioner stands accused inter alia of an offence punishable under section 409, P.P.C. which is obviously an offence which did not fall outside the prohibitory clause.

6. In this view of the matte, I do not find any merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. N.H.O./M-1005/L Bail refused.