1996SCMR1132 (PLP)
SAEED AHMED ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1996SCMR1132 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | SAEED AHMED ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996SCMR1132 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996SCMR1132 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996SCMR1132 (PLP) (SAEED AHMED ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Q.M. Saleem, Senior Advocate and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 18th May, 1994.
- Q.M. Saleem, Senior Advocate and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Sharif Butt, Advocate for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court dated 11‑4‑1994 passed in Crl. Miscellaneous No.801‑B/1994). ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.406/420/468/471/409‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Case against accused entirely depended upon documentary evidence which was in possession of the prosecution and there was no possibility of tampering with the same‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was converted into an appeal and the accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Muhammad Sharif Butt, Advocate for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SALEEM AKHTAR, J.
The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the learned Judge in Chambers whereby his bail application was dismissed.
2. The petitioner is a retired Cashier of the Police Department, who was Incharge, Fund Section of -S.S.P. Office, Lahore. He retired on 1-1-1991. On scrutiny of record it was found that he had not remitted 10 % of the amount deducted from the reward paid to the police personnel to District Police Welfare Punjab. F.I.R. was lodged on 27-12-1993 under sections 406, 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. It was alleged that on scrutiny it was found that an amount of Rs.9,22,167.30 had not been deposited during the financial years 1987, 1988 and 1989. He vas arrested on 8-1-1994 and challan was submitted on 19-3-1994.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no prohibition for grant of bail in respect of offences mentioned above, but with mala fide intention subsequently offence under section 409, P.P.C. has also been added in order to bring the petitioner's case within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The case entirely depends upon documentary evidence which seems to be in possession of the prosecution and challan has already been submitted. The objection of the learned counsel regarding addition of section 409, P.P.C. may carry some weight while considering the bail, application. As there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence, which is entirely documentary in nature and in possession of the prosecution, in the circumstances, we convert the petition into an appeal and allow it, and grant bail to the petitioner on furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar, Supreme Court, Lahore. N.H.Q./S-918/S Bail granted.