2011 PLP 1951 (SCMR)
DIRECTOR FBR, INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION DIRECTORATE, LAHORE — Petitioner Versus AKHTAR ZAMAN KHAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2011 PLP 1951 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ |
| Parties | DIRECTOR FBR, INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION DIRECTORATE, LAHORE — Petitioner Versus AKHTAR ZAMAN KHAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP 1951 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLP 1951 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP 1951 (SCMR) (DIRECTOR FBR, INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION DIRECTORATE, LAHORE — Petitioner Versus AKHTAR ZAMAN KHAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Barrister Nazir Ahmed Shami, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 23rd May, 2011.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 21-5-2009 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 4210-BC to 4222-BC of 2009, dated 2-6-2009 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.5090-BC of 2009 and dated 16-6-2009 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.6383-BC of 2009).
S.497(5)
Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Ss.33(1)(5)(12)(13) & (18)
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Misappropriation of amount
Petition for cancellation of bail
Time barred petition
No allegation against accused that he misused concession of bail in any manner
Effect
Maximum punishment for the offence with which accused was charged was 5 years and accused had already suffered incarceration of about 18 months
Petition for leave to appeal was barred by 29 days and reasons given in application for condonation of delay were not valid
Supreme Court declined to condone the delay and bail was not cancelled
Leave to appeal was refused. Asjad Javed Ghural, Additional P.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MAHMOOD AKHTAR SHAHID SIDDIQUI, J.
Leave to appeal has been sought against the order dated 21-5-2009 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore declining to withdraw the concession of bail allowed to respondent Akhtar Zaman by the same Court on 19-1-2009.
2. The respondent is alleged to have misappropriated a huge amount of Rs.46,62,595 by submitting bogus refund claims on the basis of fake invoices. A case under section 33(1)(5)(12)(13)(18) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 was registered with Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation, FBR Range Office, Gujranwala against the respondent on 20-7-2007. He was immediately arrested and was admitted to bail on 19-1-2009 after a period of about 18 months.
3. The complainant moved an application for the cancellation of bail which was also dismissed by the learned High Court vide impugned order dated 21-5-2009. The instant petitions were filed with a delay of 29 days. The prosecution during the last two years and four months made no effort to get the trial concluded. There is also no allegation against the respondent Akhtar Zaman that he misused the concession of bail in any manners the maximum punishment for the offence with which he has been charged is 5 years. He has already suffered incarceration for about 18 months. These petitions are otherwise barred by 29 days. The reasons given in the application for condonation of delay are not valid.
4. In view of the above, we do not consider it just and proper to condone the delay. Therefore, these petitions are dismissed being barred by time. M.H./D-6/SC Petition dismissed.