1985 P Cr (PLP)

This is an application for the grant of post‑arrest bail by Shahzad Tabassam Bhatti.

2. The facts of the case are that a person whose name was subsequently found out to be Gulzar Ali posing, as‑Muhammad Siddique, presented a cheque‑book requisition slip and a letter of authority from Aisha Textile Mills for receipt of a fresh cheque book on the ground that the original cheque book had been lost. On that a cheque book was issued. In the meantime the Manager came to know that the said requisition slip and letter of authority was forged. It is alleged that accused‑petitioner Shahzad Tabassam Bhatti purchased furniture for a sum of Rs.20,000 from Shisham Furniture House, Shadman Colony, Lahore, owned by Ch. Muhammad Riaz and paid Ch. Muhammad Riaz through a cheque for said, sum, taken out of the said cheque rook. Subsequently when on the same day Ch. Muhammad Riaz went to get the cheque encashed, on enquiry from the Manager, .he told him that on the telephonic message of the purchaser, the furniture had been sent by him to the Railway Station and that he could help in the apprehension of the accused on the Railway Station, Lahore, if the said cheque was forged. Accordingly, the Manager accompanied him to the Railway Station where accused‑petitioner Shahzad Tabassam Bhatti and co‑accused Gulzar Ali were found to be in possession of the said furniture.

3. The incriminating evidence against the accused consists of the following: ‑ (i) Muhammad Riaz, owner of Shisham Furniture House, has stated in his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. that the person who had come to purchase the furniture was the accused Shahzad Tabssam Bhatti and that he had in his presence made a body writing of the disputed cheque. He, however, did not state that it was signed by him also. He also stated that he too alongwith the Manager and other bank employees went to the Railway Station. The furniture was found to be in possession of Shahzad Tabassam Bhatti and the said co‑accused Gulzar Ali. (ii) The said cheque contained stamp of the Director, Aisha Textile Mills. This stamp was found by the Investigating Officer to have been prepared at the firm A.M. Qureshi and Sons, Nila Gumbad, Anarkali, Lahore. The, Investigating Officer states that the accused had led the police party to the shop of said firm and Sadiq Qureshi, owner of the said firm, in his statement under section. 161, ‑Cr.P.C. recorded on 13‑3‑1980, sated before him that the accused Shahzad Tabassam Bhatti alongwith another person had come to his shop to get stamp of the. Director, Aisha Textile Mills prepared from him and that it was the: accused who had come to get the said stamp from him and he had handed over the said stamp to him. (iii) The handwriting expert had in his original report, dated 27‑4‑1981 stated that the body writing of cheque No. CA600901 was similar in characteristics with corresponding specimen writings of the accused‑petitioner Shahzad Tabassam Bhatti.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since offence under sections 467/468 and 471, P.P.C., the offences triable by this Court are non‑cognizable offences, the entire investigation was illegal and in view of the law laid down by the High Court in Sardar Alam v. The State P

1. D 1975 Lah. 589 and Mumtaz Begum v. The State 1968 PCr.LJ 97, the challan against the accused under the said provisions of law was illegal and 'was liable to be ignored as it was based on unauthorised investigation.

5. I have considered the point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This case appears to by distinguishable as the offence under section 419/420, P.P.C. also appears to have been committed in this case, which offence was cognizable. The whole case was a joint one and, therefore, it appears to me that the Investigating Officer could have entered upon the investigation although some of the offences are non‑cognizable. It is true that offences under sections 419 and 420, P.P.C. are not triable by this Court but there was no such restriction on the power of the Investigating Officer to investigate the case in respect of said offences. I do not, therefore, think that in the circumstances of the present case the investigation made by the investigating Officer was illegal. I, therefore, reject the point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next contended that no cheque book had been recovered from the accused‑petitioner although he was apprehended on the railway station on the same day and the said circumstance appears to negate the evidence of said Ch. Muhammad Riaz that the accused‑petitioner had made the body writing of the cheque in his presence. I have considered this circumstance as well. Statement of Ch. Muhammad Riaz, under section 161, Cr.P.C., does not state that he had found the cheque book with the accused. He had only mentioned that he had seen the cheque being written by the accused. May be that the accused had with him only one blank cheque which was filled in presence of the said witness. In any way, this matter is to be sorted out 'at the time of actual evidence. S inference at this stage, in respect of the improbability of the statement of said Ch. Muhammad Riaz can be drawn. This point advanced by learned counsel for the accused‑petitioner is also, therefore, of no consequence.

7. Learned counsel for the accused‑petitioner has next contended that co‑accused Gulzar Ali had been granted bail by this Court and, therefore, in the interest of consistency, accused‑petitioner should also be granted bail. I have considered this submission of learned counsel as well. It is true that the co‑accused Gulzar Ali has been granted bail by this Court but the case of Gulzar Ali is distinguishable from that of the present petitioner. Gulzar Ali has been granted bail on the ground that the handwriting 'expert had stated in his report that definite opinion could not be given that the disputed signatures by Gulzar Ali as Muhammad Siddique corresponded with his specimen signatures on the sample sheets as no sufficient points of similarity or otherwise were forthcoming in between these, to arrive at a definite conclusion and that the Manager or any other employee of the bank. had not stated that it was the accused who had appeared in the bank to get the cheque book on the basis of the forged documents. The case of the present accused‑petitioner is, however, totally different as the writing on the, body of We cheque in question has been found by the handwriting expert to correspond with the specimen writing of the accused. The case of the petitioner is, therefore, not at par with the case of Gulzar Ali. No question of application of principle of consistency is, therefore, involved. This point is, therefore, repelled

8. On the incriminating evidence enumerated in para. 3 above, I am of the opinion that there is a reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner has committed the offence under sections 467 and 471, P. P. C. Subsection (6,) of section 5 of Ordinance IX of 1984, lays down that no bail is to be granted to such a person. 1, therefore, reject this bail application. M. B. A. Application rejected.