1994 PLP 2051 (MLD)

Saeed Ahmad petitioner, Ex-Incharge Fund Section S.S.P. Office, Lahore seeks bail in case F.I.R. No.488/93 dated 27-12-1993 P.S. Lower Mall, amore under sections 406, 420, 468, 471, P.P.C.

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner was cashier in the S.S.P. Office Lahore Beside handling the cash, he was required to deduct 10% of e amount from the reward paid to the police personnel and to remit the same to Director, Police Welfare, Punjab, Lahore. It was found that the deductions made by the petitioner against reward prior to the years 1989 -90 had not been remitted to the C.P.O./Director, Police Welfare Fund On scrutiny of the record, it came to light that an amount of Rs.9,22167.30 received by the petitioner during the financial years 1987-88 and 1988-89 had not been deposited with the Director, Police Welfare, Punjab which presumably had been embezzled/misappropriated by the petitioner. Consequently, the matter was reported to the police and the petitioner was arrested on 8-1-1994.

3. The petitioner applied for bail to the learned Special Judge, Anti, Corruption, Lahore. On the dismissal of his application on 9-2-1994 by him he has approached this Court for bail.

4. It is contended that having retired on 1st January, 1991 the petitioner had submitted full accounts but the present case was got registered on 27-12-1993 on false allegations after making interpolations in the record. The delay in reporting the matter of the police is also pressed into service.

5. It is stated that no entrustment of funds to the petitioner is established and further that none of the offences with which the petitioner stands charged falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Legality of the deduction from the reward amount is also seriously assailed.

6. Learned counsel for the State has strenuously opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. According to him, the offence under section 409, P.P.C. is punishable with ten years' R.I. and thus it falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. It is further stated that since the petitioner was Incharge of the cash and used to receive the amount of reward from the bank, it was his duty to deduct 10% amount and to remit the same to the Police Welfare Fund but he did not do so. Learned counsel has produced the record before me, the perusal of which shows that 10% deductions were made from the reward amount by the petitioner but the same does not appear to have been despatched to Director, Police Welfare, Punjab, Lahore. Admittedly, he I was handling the accounts during the relevant period.

7. In the circumstances narrated above, I do not consider the petitioner, entitled to bail at this stage and accordingly dismiss the application. The question of the legality of the deductions of 10% from the amount of reward and the manner of its utilization will be examined in depth by the competent fora at the relevant time. N.H.Q./S-493/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.