1997 PLP 3135 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 27th November, 1994 Respondent No.1 Muhammad Idrees who is involved in a case under section 406/419/420/467/468/471, P.P.C. arising out of F.I.R. No.336, dated 14‑12‑1993, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Sialkot, was granted bail before arrest by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot, vide order dated 10‑2‑1994. The complainant (petitioner herein) filed an application before the Sessions Court, for cancellation of the bail, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot, by his order dated 17‑7‑1994. Through the under consideration, the petitioner seeks the cancellation of bail

2. As per F.I.R., lodged by the petitioner, it was alleged that Jackets worth Rs.24,990.42 were supplied by the petitioner who is Manager of Renown Industries, Main Bazar, Sialkot, to a Saudi Firm, namely, Ahmad Buddai, Trading Services Dammam at the instance of the respondent, who was in the service of said Saudi firm. Due to the non‑payment of the price of the goods supplied, the petitioner wrote to the Saudi firm. On 23‑6‑1993, he received a letter from Chamber of Commerce, Dammam, Saudi Arabia, wherein it was confirmed that the amount would be paid to the petitioner in Pakistan. Again he received letter dated 26‑7‑1993, from the Chamber of Commerce that payment had been made to the complainant's firm. It is alleged that a letter purported to have been issued by the petitioner's firm was sent to the Saudi firm by the respondent in collusion with his brother Attique and similarly a telex was issued to the Chamber of Commerce, Dammam showing that the said letter was issued by the petitioner that the disputed amount had been received by him. According to the petitioner; during the period from 29‑4‑1993 to 8‑6‑1993, he was in Saudi Arabia, hence the fax dated 27‑5‑1993, was not issued by him, but it was issued by the respondent in collusion with his brother by fabricating certain changes. Similarly, was the position with regard to telex dated 29‑5‑1993, issued to the Chamber of Commerce, Dammam, about the receipt of payment. It was averred that either respondent No. l or his brother has received the amount from the Saudi firm or they have defrauded the petitioner in collusion with the said firm. It is also alleged that on the protest of the petitioner, he received a letter from the Chamber of Commerce, Dammam that the respondent had received the amount from Saudi firm and he was responsible for its payment to the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that respondent No. l in order to avoid the payment of the goods supplied to Ahmad Buddai Trading Services, Dammam, forged letter dated 27‑5‑1993, in which for the first time it was alleged that the petitioner has received the payment and thereafter prepared a telex dated 29‑5‑1993, in which it was shown that the petitioner has admitted the receipt of the payment, as is apparent from Annexures C and C/

1. Learned counsel further submitted that on these dates, the petitioner was in Saudi Arabia; hence it was not possible for the petitioner to send telex, as is apparent from Annexures D to D/7. These two forged documents i.e.. Annexures C and C/1, were sent by the brother and co‑accused of respondent No. l from Sialkot without the approval of the Chamber of Commerce, as there is no certificate on the file to the effect that the petitioner authorised him to send telex message to Ahmad Buddai Trading Services, Dammam acknowledging the payment made by them. He also contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed pre‑arrest bail to the respondent which has interfered with the investigation of the case as the respondent was instrumental in the manipulation and forgery of the documents and also joined hands with his brother, who was arrested and investigated, but no useful information could be elicited from him as respondent No. l was granted pre‑arrest bail and the police was deprived of getting his physical remand, hence the bail may be cancelled in the interest of justice.

4. The learned counsel for the State has not supported this petition.

5. The learned counsel for respondent No. l has referred to the following observations of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in his order dated 17‑7‑1994:‑ "The application for pre‑arrest bail moved by the respondent Muhammad Idrees was accepted mainly on the grounds that the complainant had no clear' idea about any offence having been committed by the respondent and that only suspicion was expressed by him that the respondent had either received the amount from Ahmad Buddai Trading Services, Dammam or he has committed fraud in collusion with the said firm. ******* The present application for cancellation of bail is only based on a photo copy of acknowledgement allegedly given by the respondent Muhammad Idrees on the letter from of Ahmad Buddai establishment which is stated to have been sent to the complainant firm by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia." Learned counsel submitted that the police could not get the original from the Petitioner and even the petitioner failed to produce the original document(s) before the police officer in spite of numerous opportunities given to him. He placed reliance on 1991 MLD 1428, PLD 1989 SC 585, 1988 SCMR 1129, 1985 SCMR 1691, 1988 PCr.IJ 304 and 1991 PCr.LJ 667.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while dismissing the application of the petitioner for cancellation of bail of the respondent, rightly came to the conclusion that prima facie, no case for cancellation of bail is made out. Even otherwise, there is no justification for the petitioner to ask for the cancellation of bail of the respondent when the matter is pending in the Court and in spite of repeated adjournments, the complainant failed to adduce his evidence before the Court which could have given some strength to the prosecution case. On the contrary it appears that there were certain commercial dealings between the two firms and the matter may, prima facie, be one of civil nature. In the circumstances, the acceptance of this application would unduly prejudice the defence of the respondent. With these observations, this petition is dismissed. H.B.T./M‑2137/L Petition dismissed.