1987 PLP 1158 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF‑‑Petitioner Versus Captain (Retd.) ABDUL QAYYUM and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1158 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSAF‑‑Petitioner Versus Captain (Retd.) ABDUL QAYYUM and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1158 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1158 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1158 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD YOUSAF‑‑Petitioner Versus Captain (Retd.) ABDUL QAYYUM and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Nazir Ahmad Shami, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- A. Basit, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 26th April, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 2‑12‑1986 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3234/13 of 1986). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ‑‑‑Ss. 497 & 498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 468, 471 & 409‑ Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 185(3)‑‑Bail before arrest‑‑Cancellation of‑ Respondent accused of offences under sections 468, 471 and 409 of P.P.C. read with S.5(2) of Act (II of 1947)‑‑Authorities enquiring into allegations‑‑Finding indicating only tampering with official record‑‑Bail before arrest allowed by High Court on basis of said finding‑‑Order impugned by private complainant‑‑No case having been made out for interference with impugned order and State not having agitated same, leave to appeal refused. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss. 497 & 498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 468, 471 & 409‑ Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 185(3)‑‑Bail before arrest‑‑Cancellation of‑ Respondent accused of offences under sections 468, 471 and 409 of P.P.C. read with S.5(2) of Act (II of 1947)‑‑Authorities enquiring into allegations‑‑Finding indicating only tampering with official record‑‑Bail before arrest allowed by High Court on basis of said finding‑‑Order impugned by private complainant‑‑No case having been made out for interference with impugned order and State not having agitated same, leave to appeal refused. Sh. Nazir Ahmad Shami, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. A. Basit, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.
1. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 26th April, 1987. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner in this petition for special leave to appeal seeks cancellation of pre‑arrest bail which has been granted to respondent No.1 by the High Court.
2. Respondent No. l is an Executive Engineer in the Highway Division of the Provincial Government. The petitioner filed a complaint against him with the Directorate of Anti‑Corruption. In the complaint as many as 22 allegations were made against him. These allegations related to misappropriation of funds, irregularities in inviting and accepting tenders and tampering with the official record. On the basis of this complaint a case under sections 468, 471 and 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered by the said Directorate against respondent No.1. An Assistant Director Anti -Corruption held a detailed inquiry and found substance in only three allegations. These related to tampering with the tender documents. As it was not established that respondent No.1 had taken any money or bribe, the Assistant Director recommended that only departmental action be taken against him. On the basis of the findings of the Assistant Director Anti‑Corruption the High Court allowed pre‑arrest bail to respondent No.1.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we have not been persuaded that any case for interfering with the order of the High Court has been made out. It is also to be noticed that the State has not cared to agitate against the order of the High Court. We would accordingly dismiss this petition. M.I. /M‑88/S Petition dismissed.