2001 PLP 944 (MLD)

Mr. A.meer Hani Muslim, learned counsel for the applicant, has referred following case law:‑‑ (1) Section 10 of Colonization of Government Land Act, 1912:‑‑ "The Board of Revenue subject to the general approval ‑of the Government may grant land in colony to any person on such conditions as it thinks fit." , Rule ‑7 of the Sindh Government Rules of Business, 1986:‑‑ (i) The Chief Minister may allocate to a Minister one or more Departments or part of a Department, but the Chief Minister shall have powers to pass order in any case concerning any Department without consulting the Minister of that Department. (ii) The Chief Minister may, in respect of any Department, delegate all or any of his powers under these Rules to a Minister or an Advisor or Secretary of the Department. (iii) Any order passed by the Chief Minister or any authority to whom he has delegated his powers to pass such orders shall be deemed to be the order passed by the Government." , (3) PLD 1956 SC 417 case of Shakir Hussain v. The State:‑‑ Their Lordships in this authority have held as follows:‑‑ "that, before the prosecution can ask for a conviction of a criminal offence, it is its duty to prove each ingredient of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, it is obvious that where the charge against an accused person is that of criminal breach of trust the prosecution must prove not only entrustment of the dominion over property but also that the accused either dishonestly misappropriated, converted, used or disposed of that property himself or that he wilfully suffered some other person to do so." Mr. Riaz Akhtar, learned Assistant Advocate‑General Sindh, for the State, has contended that the applicant/accused submitted the summary directly to the Chief Minister, bye‑passing the Secretary, Finance and tie Chief Secretary; that there is every possibility that the accused/applicant may tamper with the prosecution evidence and possibility of his absconsion cannot be ruled out; and as such the learned Assistant Advocate‑General. opposed the grant of bail application. I have gone through the material placed with the case. The accused/applicant was arrested on 8‑12‑1996 and has since been remanded to judicial custody. The allegation of the prosecution against the accused/applicant is that he, while acting as Secretary, Land Utilization, submitted the summary directly to the Chief Minister, bypassing the Secretary, Finance and the Chief Secretary, recommending the grant of the land to Abdul Ghafoor Bhutto and Aman Ziauddin, at the rate of Rs.100 per sq. yd. whereas the market value was ranging between Rs.1,000 to Rs.1,500 per sq.yd, in spite of opposition, raised by the D. C. East. That the Secretary Finance also disputed the recommendation on the ground that the land in question had already been transferred to KDA and that through illegal/irregular transfer order the Government exchequer suffered a huge loss estimated between Rs.37 million and Rs.61 million approximately. The above alleged evidence, procured by the prosecution, is documentary in nature and the same is to be examined and analysed by the Court at the trial, which is yet to take place. The alleged summary was approved by the Chief Minister and under the Sindh Government Rules of Business, 1986, reproduced hereinabove, any order passed by the Chief Minister shall be deemed, the order passed by the Government and the Board of Revenue under the Rules of Business of Government of Sindh, 1986, is authoriased for colonization and disposal of State land. The accused/applicant is Government servant, serving in Grade‑20 and there is no allegation, from the prosecution, against the applicant regarding receiving any pecuniary benefits/advantages due to the allotment of the land in question to the allottees. The accused/applicant has been remanded to judicial custody and he is no more required for investigation purposes. The applicant, being a Government servant, is not likely to abscond or tamper with the evidence as the evidence is documentary in nature; which has already been procured by the prosecution. Co‑accused Abdullah Shah and Syed‑Asad Ali Shah, have been granted pre‑arrest bail by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. Case of the accused/applicant is identical to that of the co‑accused. Without touching further merit of the case, which may prejudice case of the either party, I am of the firm opinion that, prima facie, case of the applicant requires further enquiry, regarding his involvement in the crime. Consequently, I allow the application and it is ordered that the applicant may be released on bail on furnishing one solvent surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs only) with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir, of this Court, if not required in any other case. After hearing the parties I have allowed the application by my short order, dated 29‑12‑1996. These are the reasons for the same. H.B.T./R‑16/K Bail granted.