2000 PLP 913 (YLR)

A case under section 218/409/420/ 468/471/109, P.P.C., read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is registered against the petitioner and others vide F.I.R. No.70 of 1998, dated 23‑11‑1998 at Police Station A.C.E. Lahore Region, Lahore at the report of Muhammad Boota, Advocate in which he contended that he was owner of land situated in Khata No.1822 in Mauza Niaz Baig, Lahore. The aforesaid land was acquired for Johar Town by the L.D.A. He contacted the consolidation staff to obtain Fard Malkiat of his land aforesaid, whereupon, he was told that his National Identity Card was forged by a gang operating in collusion with the L.D.A. Staff. His forged power of attorney was prepared and on the basis of the aforesaid power of attorney. N.O.C. was obtained. The petitioner alongwith other deprived the complainant of his valuable land on the basis of the forged documents and thereby got Plots Nos.601/L and 602/L which were allotted to him but later. on stood transferred through the fraudulent transaction to Elahi Bakhsh and Almas Begum respectively.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case; that he never acted in collusion with the L.D.A. officials nor did be join hands with other co‑accused. However, it was conceded that the petitioner was one of the identifier of the attorney Abdul Aziz Butt when the general power of attorney was executed in his favour allegedly by Muhammad Boota. It is also contended that the property in question was first transferred in the name of Muhammad Mustaqeem through an agreement and, thereafter, it was alienated to Riaz through an agreement who allegedly transferred the same onward to Aziz Butt through another agreement in whose favour the power of attorney was forged and the land was then transferred to Mirza Riaz and onward to the petitioner. It was, therefore, contained that since the plots in question were never transferred in the name of the petitioner nor he was the beneficiary under the transaction, therefore, he was not involved in any alleged forgery of the documents nor he had misappropriated any property belonging to the complainant and as such, the provisions of section 409/420 or 486, P.P.C., were not attracted to him nor he was involved in any official misconduct being a man from public. The mere fact that his name was mentioned in the alleged forged power of attorney as identifier would not be sufficient to involve him in this case which was a case of further enquiry as far as the petitioner is concerned. Reliance was placed on 1987 PCr.LJ 447 (Lahore) Mazhar Muhammad v. The State, 1995 MLD 766 Irshad Ahmad Khan v. State and 1998 PCr.LJ 2169 Razaq Ahmad and others v. The State to show that the petitioner was no more required for the investigation and that since the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., the bail to him be granted as a matter of rule.

3. The bail application was opposed the learned counsel for the State, assisted the learned counsel for the complainant on ground that the petitioner was operating v a 'Qabza Group' which consisted of his accused and, thereafter, through for documents deprived the complainant of land. In this regard, it was contended that power of attorney was never executed by complainant but the same was forged favour of Abdul Aziz and still there nothing on record to show that Muhammad Mustaqeem had any authority from the complainant to further transfer the land Shumail Muneer i.e., the petitioner who onward alienated the land to Riaz his a accused who was also his close relative was, therefore, contended that the petite acted fraudulently to deprive the complaint of his land with the help of his co‑accused through the surreptitious manner and great dexterity and criminal skill. The power of attorney having been denied by complainant and a purported blank sale‑deed duly signed by the complainant being denied, it was submitted that the petitioner having acted fraudulently in preparing the forged documents to deprive the complains of his property is not entitled to bail at stage particularly when the other co‑acct are still at large.

4. I have considered the forego submissions and find that the case wt registered on 23‑11‑1998 but the investigate. is not complete nor a report, interim or fins as envisaged by section 173, Cr.P.C, been sent to the Court. However, taking consideration the foregoing facts, it a, that the petitioner prima facie play active role in the preparation of the documents with the help of his co‑accused and also ultimately got a sale‑deed ex in his favour and further transferred the same to one of his relative and co‑accused namely Riaz Ahmad. As such, it cannot be said a random that the petitioner was not beneficiary of the fishy transaction. In such situation, the petitioner has no case for bail this stage. The petition is dismissed with the observation that the Investigating Officer shall comply with the provisions of section 173, Cr.P.C., and shall submit, interim or final, report under section 173, Cr.P.C., to the Court concerned within two weeks, failing which the petitioner may re‑agitate the bail matter before the Trial Court, irrespective of the dismissal of petition vide this order. N.H.Q./S‑386/L Bail refused.