2013 PLP 2209 (YLR)
KHALID HUSSAIN CHATHA — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD USMAN alias NOMEE and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 PLP 2209 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Shahid Hameed Dar and Muhammad Yawar Ali, JJ |
| Parties | KHALID HUSSAIN CHATHA — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD USMAN alias NOMEE and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 2209 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 2209 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Shahid Hameed Dar and Muhammad Yawar Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 2209 (YLR) (KHALID HUSSAIN CHATHA — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD USMAN alias NOMEE and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Muhammad Younas for Petitioner.
- Abdul Ghafoor Sheikh for Respondent No.1.
- 3. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 has controverted the allegations which have been levelled by the petitioner by submitting that the instant F.I.R. has been lodged with an inordinate delay which has not been explained; respondent No.1 owns only 5% share of the alleged rogue firm Messrs I.G. Traders; respondent No.1 is a previous non-convict no more required for further investigation of the case.
- 4. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is clear that the F.I.R. in question has been lodged with an inordinate delay for which no plausible explanation is forthcoming. In the column of date and hour of occurrence only "Year-2008" has been mentioned meaning thereby that the offence is stated to have taken place in the year 2008 whereas the F.I.R. was lodged after about four years on 19-1-2012. Without going into the deeper merits of the case, it can be observed that respondent No.1 has been charged with offences which do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. hence, in cases not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or ten years imprisonment grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception as has been held by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34). It has neither been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, nor is there any material on the record to show that respondent No.1 has misused the concession of bail earlier allowed to him by this Court on 8-8-2012 while disposing of Criminal Miscellaneous No.9054-B of 2012. It is trite that considerations for cancellation of bail are totally different and distinct from considerations for grant of bail. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan while deciding case titled Shahid Arshad v. Muhammad Nagi Butt and 2 others 1976 SCMR 360 has held that although they were not entirely happy by the bail granting order still they would not interfere and cancel the bail since concession of bail granted to the respondent had not been misused. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to convince us that the bail granting order is perverse and patently illegal, warranting any interference by this Court. The State/Anti-Narcotic through Director-General v. Rafiq Ahmad Channa (2010 SCMR 580) can be read with considerable advantage. An assertion made by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that respondent No.1 is a previous non-convict no more required for further investigation of the case has neither been negated by the learned counsel for the petitioner nor by the learned Law Officer representing the State.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(5)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468 , 471, 109 & 34
Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)
Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document, criminal misconduct
Petition for cancellation of bail, dismissal of
F.I.R. was lodged after a delay of about four years without any explanation
Offences alleged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C.
Misuse of concession of bail on part of accused was not shown
Plea of accused that he was a previous non-convict and was no more required for further investigation was not negated by complainant
Petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed in circumstances.
S. 497(1)
Scope
Accused charged with offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C.
For such offences bail was a rule and refusal thereof an exception. Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34 rel. Muhammad Usman Arif and Muhammad Khalil Rana for the Bank. Ch. Muhammad Ishaq, Deputy Attorney General with Safdar Iqbal, Manager, Askari Bank and Irshad Ahmad, Inspector/FIA.
Judgment & Decree
Through this petition filed under section 497(5) Cr.P.C., the petitioner, Khalid Hussain Chatha seeks cancellation of bail in case F.I.R. No.12 of 2012 dated 19-1-2012 for offences under section 420, 468, 471, 34 P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 registered at Police Station F.I.A., CCC Circle, Lahore allowed to respondent No.1 by this Court vide order dated 8-8-2012 while disposing of Criminal Miscellaneous No.9054-B of 2012.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Law Officer representing the State submit that respondent No.1 has been nominated in the F.I.R. and a specific role has been attributed to him. Respondent No.1 has been found to be guilty during the investigation which has taken place. There is no mala fide on the part of the complainant/petitioner herein to have lodged a false and frivolous criminal case against the accused persons. Respondent No.1 has previous criminal antecedents inasmuch as a large number of F.I.R's. have been registered against him. Respondent No.1 is the mastermind behind a mega financial scam hence miscarriage of justice would be occasioned, in case, post-arrest bail earlier allowed to him by this Court is not recalled.
3. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 has controverted the allegations which have been levelled by the petitioner by submitting that the instant F.I.R. has been lodged with an inordinate delay which has not been explained; respondent No.1 owns only 5% share of the alleged rogue firm Messrs I.G. Traders; respondent No.1 is a previous non-convict no more required for further investigation of the case.
4. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is clear that the F.I.R. in question has been lodged with an inordinate delay for which no plausible explanation is forthcoming. In the column of date and hour of occurrence only "Year-2008" has been mentioned meaning thereby that the offence is stated to have taken place in the year 2008 whereas the F.I.R. was lodged after about four years on 19-1-2012. Without going into the deeper merits of the case, it can be observed that respondent No.1 has been charged with offences which do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. hence, in cases not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or ten years imprisonment grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception as has been held by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34). It has neither been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, nor is there any material on the record to show that respondent No.1 has misused the concession of bail earlier allowed to him by this Court on 8-8-2012 while disposing of Criminal Miscellaneous No.9054-B of 2012. It is trite that considerations for cancellation of bail are totally different and distinct from considerations for grant of bail. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan while deciding case titled Shahid Arshad v. Muhammad Nagi Butt and 2 others 1976 SCMR 360 has held that although they were not entirely happy by the bail granting order still they would not interfere and cancel the bail since concession of bail granted to the respondent had not been misused. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to convince us that the bail granting order is perverse and patently illegal, warranting any interference by this Court. The State/Anti-Narcotic through Director-General v. Rafiq Ahmad Channa (2010 SCMR 580) can be read with considerable advantage. An assertion made by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that respondent No.1 is a previous non-convict no more required for further investigation of the case has neither been negated by the learned counsel for the petitioner nor by the learned Law Officer representing the State.
5. For what has been stated above, this petition being without any merit is dismissed. MWA/K-12/L Petition dismissed.