2006 PLP 1970 (YLR)
NOOR MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1970 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J |
| Parties | NOOR MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1970 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1970 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1970 (YLR) (NOOR MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Sohail Iftikhar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.409
Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5-Bail, refusal of
Accused being the Chairman of Zakat and Ushr Committee was entrusted with a very pious job of distributing the Zakat Fund to the deserving poor people and a heavy responsibility lay on him
Accused, however, did not realize the demand of his job and misappropriated the Zakat Fund meant for helping the poor by distributing the same to non-deserving persons including his relative who was a Zamindar
Act of accused, prima facie, fell within the mischief of S.409, P.P.C. which was hit by the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P. C.-Bail was declined to accused in circumstances. Muhammad Faheem Khurram for the State with Lal Akhtar Khan Baluch, Deputy Director, Anti-Corruption.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.
Noor Muhammad has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.20 registered at Police Station, ACE, Bahawalnagar on 20-4-2005 for offence under section 409, P.P.C. read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. Precisely, the allegation against the petitioner is that in his capacity as Chairman, Zakat and Ushr Committee, Chak No.20/3-R, Tehsil Haroonabad, he distributed Zakat Fund amounting to Rs.65,000 to the non-deserving persons and embezzled an amount of Rs.1,59,
500. The petitioner was arrested on 30-12-2004 and is in jail after completion of investigation of the case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no record is available against the petitioner that he was a beneficiary of the amount distributed; that the amount was distributed to the persons who existed and have sworn affidavits to the effect that they had received the amount; that he was roped in a false case, as he refused to advance Zakat amount to Muhammad Hanif, who was Zimindar; that the amount was distributed to the persons after due scrutiny and sanction by the relevant authorities. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that sufficient incriminating evidence was available against the petitioner to connect him with the offence under section 409, P.P.C., which attracted the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; and that two prosecution witnesses have already been recorded and the petitioner did not deserve bail at this stage.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant record of the case.
5. It has be noticed that the petitioner who was Chairman of Zakat and Ushr Committee, distributed Rs.25,000 to his brother-in-law (Bahnoi) Muhammad Shafiq, who was a Zimindar and did not deserve Zakat amount. He also distributed Rs.25,000 to one Barish Ali who was resident of Khanewal and also did not deserve any Zakat amount. The petitioner was entrusted with a very pious job of distributing the Zakat Fund to the deserving poor people and a heavy responsibility laid on him. He, unfortunately, did not realize the demand of his job and misappropriated the Zakat Fund meant for helping the poor by distributing it to the non-deserving persons. Prima facie, his act falls within the mischief of offence under section 409, P.P.C. which attracts the prohibition contained in section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. In the above noted circumstances, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner to bail. This application is dismissed. N.H.Q./N-14/L Bail refused.