1986 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 109/201/409‑‑ Misappropriation‑‑Only incriminating evidence available being statement of co‑accused‑‑No other material on record, connected accused with commission of offence‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances. Ch. Ghulam Sarwar for Petitioner. Sh. Naseerud Din Ahmad for the State. Muhammad Baqar petitioner has moved this petition for bail in a case registered against him and his co‑accused Muhammad Naveed under section 409, P.P.C sections 201 and 109, P.P.C. were added subsequently.

2. The petitioner is an ex‑Chairman of Town Committee, Kot Radha Kishan, and co‑accused Muhammad Navid is a tax‑clerk of the same Town Committee. The case was registered on 5‑12‑1982 on the report of present Chairman of the Town Committee, namely, Mubarik Ali, wherein he alleged that ex‑Chairman Muhammad Baqir (the petitioner herein), during his tenure, advanced Rs.40,000 to Muhammad Navid tax‑clerk, for the completion of certain works, out of which only an amount of Rs.5,744 was spent and a notice was served on Muhammad Navid tax‑clerk to deposit the remaining amount within seven days, otherwise proper proceedings will be taken against him. Muhammad Navid, in his written reply, stated that ex‑Chairman Muhammad Baqir (petitioner herein) had taken back an amount of Rs.45,950 from him, therefore, the works could not be completed. On the basis of these allegations it was requested that a case for misappropriating Rs.34,256 be registered against the tax‑clerk and the ex‑Chairman.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations in the F.I.R., even if accepted, would not bring the case within the ambit of section 409, P.P.C. because the amount was never entrusted to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner had taken over as Chairman after a successful no‑confidence motion against the complainant and he harbours grudge against the petitioner on that score. The learned counsel further states that co‑accused Muhammad Navid has sworn an affidavit to the effect that the complainant had pressurised him to make a statement that the petitioner had taken an amount of Rs.45,950 from him (co‑accused). A photo copy of the affidavit / has been placed on the file. It is further argued that the statement of the co‑accused has no evidentiary value whatsoever and there is absolutely, no material against the petitioner to connect him with the commission of offence.

4. The learned State counsel concedes that except the statement of the co‑accused the prosecution is not in possession of any evidence against the petitioner. In the circumstances, a case for his enlargement is made out. I, therefore, admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/ Duty Magistrate, Kasur. S.A. Bail allowed.