2006 PLP 3013 (YLR)
MAHMOOD-UL-HASSAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 3013 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | M. Bilal Khan, J |
| Parties | MAHMOOD-UL-HASSAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 3013 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 3013 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: M. Bilal Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 3013 (YLR) (MAHMOOD-UL-HASSAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahid Azeem for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.380, 408, 468, 471 & 109
Accused had been duly ,nominated in F.I.R.
Accused in connivance with his co-accused had been using receipts of various companies showing purchase of different articles, which during course of inquiry by complainant-company, turned to be false transactions
Both accused persons had caused substantial loss to complainant
Even if no recovery was effected from accused, it would not make any difference because in such-like cases, sometimes recovery could not be effected as accused had been utilizing amount embezzled by them
Offence with which accused was charged, prima facie attracted prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.
Petition for grant of bail, was dismissed, in circumstances. Barrister Muhammad Kamran Sheikh for the Complainant. Ms. Aneela jabeen for the State.
Judgment & Decree
M. BILAL KHAN, J.
Mahmood- ul-Hassan son of Ghulam Hassan, the petitioner, by filing the instant petition seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.175, dated 9-3-2005, registered at Police Station, Peoples Colony, Faisalabad for offences under sections 380, 408, 468 and 471 read with section 109, P.P.C. at the instance of Mian Liaqat Ali Qamar, General Manager, Messrs J.A. Textile Mills Limited, Faisalabad.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioner, according to the F.I.R., was that he being the Purchase Officer in connivance of his co-accused Amjad Hussain, who was Assistant Purchaser Officer with the complainant (Textile Company) had embezzled an amount of Rs.11,44,572.
3. The petitioner had been arrested on 24-12-2005 and is in custody ever since. His plea for post-arrest bail did not find favour with the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, who proceeded to dismiss his application vide order dated 16-2-2006. Hence, the instant petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the record brought by Hamid Ali, A.S.-I.
5. It has been observed the petitioner has been duly nominated in the F.I.R. Admittedly, he was employee of the complainant-Company and being Purchase Officer had been entrusted with different affairs thereof. He in connivance with his co-accused Amjad Hussain, who was. Assistant Purchase Officer, had been using receipts of various Companies showing the purchase of different articles, which during the course of inquiry by the complainant-Company, turned out to be fake transactions. Both the accused persons had caused substantial loss to the company. Insofar as the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no recovery A had been effected either from the petitioner or at his instance during the course of investigation is concerned, it does not make any difference because in such-like cases sometimes recovery may not be effected, as the accused had been utilizing the amount embezzled by him. The offence under section 467, P.P.C. with which the petitioner has been charged for the time being attracts the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to allow him the relief sought for.
6. Resultantly, there being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. H.B.T./M-463/L Bail refused.