Perusal of the record reveals that a scam regarding bogus registration of 4397 vehicles was surfaced from the office of Excise & Taxation, Region-C, Lahore.

 2022 SCMR 2068

Perusal of the record reveals that a scam regarding bogus registration of 4397 vehicles was surfaced from the office of Excise & Taxation, Region-C, Lahore. The petitioner Naeem Qadir Sheikh was posted as Excise & Taxation Officer (ETO) in the year 2019 whereas the petitioner Muhammad Zaigham Ali was posted as Data Entry Operator. During the tenure of petitioner Naeem Qadir Sheikh, he approved printing of 80 registration certificates out of which 14 were found to be bogus, hence, their documents were cancelled whereas 27 were found to be in accordance with law while 39 are still in process of investigation. It is the case of petitioner Naeem Qadir Sheikh that he approved printing of registration certificates of the vehicles, whose verification, registration fee and token tax had already been deposited before his posting. According to him, the scanning record of all these 80 files is available and was also provided to the Investigating Officer. It is an admitted fact that he was posted as ETO in the year 2019 whereas the scam of bogus registration pertains to 2015-2018. The Investigating Officer, present in Court, stated before this Court that uptill now the petitioner has no nexus with the scam, which is under investigation. As far as the case of petitioner Muhammad Zaigham Ali is concerned, it is his case that he was merely a Data Entry Operator, who was entrusted with the job of punching the data in system. It is the case of the petitioners that as per SOPs, the basic duty to (i) examine the documents and verify the particulars of the vehicles entered in the system with the original file, (ii) physical examination of the vehicle, and (iii) submission of the file after complete satisfaction of the papers of the motor vehicle was of the Inspector and not the petitioner. We have been informed that the all the officers, who were nominated in the crime report, have been exonerated. This fact prima facie fortifies the stance of the petitioners that they have been made scapegoat. The co-accused of the petitioners namely Adeel Amjad, who has been ascribed a similar role has been granted post arrest bail by the learned Trial Court. The department filed petition before the High Court seeking cancellation of bail but the same was dismissed vide order dated 19.01.2022. The said order has not been challenged before this Court meaning thereby that it has attained finality.
In such like situation, when it is admitted fact that the role ascribed to the petitioners cannot be distinguished from the co-accused who has been granted post-arrest bail by the court of competent jurisdiction which remains unchallenged, any order by this Court on any technical ground that the consideration for pre-arrest bail and postarrest bail are entirely on different footing, would be only limited upto the arrest of the petitioners because of the reason that soon after their arrest they would become entitled for the concession of post-arrest bail on the plea of consistency. Reliance is placed on the cases reported as Muhammad Ramzan Vs. Zafarullah (1986 SCMR 1380), Kazim Ali and others Vs. The State and others (2021 SCMR 2086), Muhammad Kashif Iqbal Vs. The State and another (2022 SCMR 821) and Javed Iqbal Vs. The State through Prosecutor General of Punjab and another (2022 SCMR 1424). It is now established that while granting prearrest bail, the merits of the case can be touched upon by the Court. Reliance is placed on Miran Bux Vs. The State (PLD 1989 SC 347), Sajid Hussain @ Joji Vs. The State (PLD 2021 SC 898), Javed Iqbal Vs. The State (PLD 2022 SCMR 1424) & Muhammad Ijaz Vs. The State (2022 SCMR 1271). In these circumstances, it is the Trial Court who after recording of evidence would decide about the guilt or otherwise of the petitioners and no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners behind the bars for an indefinite period. Prima facie there are sufficient grounds to take into consideration that the case of the petitioners is fully covered by Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into their guilt.

Post a Comment

0 Comments

close