PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 15
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497(2), Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409, 420, 468, 471, 201, 161, 162 & 411--Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, S. 5(2)--Bail, grant of--Further inquiry--Allegation of--Petitioner was XEN in irrigation department--Petitioner alongwith his co-accused was found responsible for large scale illegal recruitments of work charge employees and their regularization in violation of rules in Store & Workshop Division--The claim of petitioner is that he passed orders for regularization of work charge employees in good faith in meticulous compliance of orders/directions of Courts--The said writ petition was decide in favour of petitioner with observation that his actions/orders had to be encouraged for good reasons, accordingly, he honoured observations of Court and proceedings initiated against him under PEEDA Act, were dropped--Furthermore, investigating officer has alleged that 160-bogs appointment letters were made by petitioner but on Court’s query, he has conceded that said appointment letters do not bear signature of petitioner. [Para 2 & 4] A, B & C
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497(2)--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), S. 409--Further inquiry--Allegation of--Illegal gratification and embezzlement of Government Funds--Illegal gratification--Bail, grant of--The perusal of record goes to evince that National Accountability Bureau has also initiated proceedings under charge of assets beyond known source of income wherein entire property including bank accounts of petitioner is already under caution--Petitioner is behind bars since arrest and his physical custody is not required to police anymore for further investigation--Accusation against petitioner is only to extent of receiving illegal gratification and not misappropriation/embezzlement of government funds and as such provisions of Section 409, PPC prima facie do not attract to facts and circumstances of case, whereas all remaining offences do not attract prohibitory limb of Section 497, Cr.P.C--Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances, case against petitioner requires further probe and inquiry into his guilt under sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. and, thus, his further incarnation for an indefinite period would serve no useful purpose for prosecution--Bail allowed. [Para 4] D
Rana Asif Saeed, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Muhammad Ali Shahab, Deputy Prosecutor General alongwith Syed Anwar Hussain Shah, DD(P), Athar Mehmood Kanju, DDI and Umar Abdul Rehman, ADT/ACE for State.
Date of hearing: 20.9.2021.
PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 15
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Asjad Javaid Ghural, J.
MUHAMMAD ATHAR--Petitioner
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 5727-B of 2021, decided on 20.9.2021.
Order
Through this petition under Section 497, Cr.P.C. petitioner Muhammad Athar has sought post arrest bail in case FIR No. 02/21 dated 19.02.2021, in respect of offences under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471, 201, 161 162 & 411, PPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 of registered at Police Station, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Muzaffargarh.
2. Precisely, the allegation against the petitioner is that during inquiry conducted by the Irrigation Department, Govt. of the Punjab, Lahore, the petitioner alongwith his co-accused was found responsible for large scale illegal recruitments of the work charge employees and their regularization in violation of rules in the Store & Workshop Division, Muzaffargarh. Hence, this case was registered.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Prosecutor General appearing for the State and perused the record with their able assistance.
4. The petitioner, while posting as XEN in the Irrigation Department Govt. of the Punjab, Lahore at the Store & Workshop Division Muzaffargarh during the period of 16.08.2017 to 14.02.2020, was alleged to have issued regularization letters to 298-work charge employees of the Department but during investigation, the investigating officer found that the petitioner had issued regularization letters to 1066-work charge employees out of which 203-employees are drawing their salaries. The claim of the petitioner is that he passed the orders for regularization of work charge employees in good faith in meticulous compliance of orders/directions of the Courts. In support of his contention, the petitioner has placed on record certified copy of order dated 01.07.2021 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 35626/2020 against the show-cause notice issued against him under the PEEDA Act, 2006 by the Department. The said writ petition was decide in favour of the petitioner with the observation that his actions/orders had to be encouraged for good reasons, accordingly, he honoured the observations of the Court and the proceedings initiated against him under the PEEDA Act, were dropped. Furthermore, the investigating officer has alleged that 160-bogs appointment letters were made by the petitioner but on Court’s query, he has conceded that the said appointment letters do not bear the signature of the petitioner. During investigation, seventy work charge employees got recorded their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. qua receiving gratification by the petitioner but not a single penny could be recovered from the petitioner during his physical remand. The petitioner has also placed on record photocopies of orders passed by this Court in different writ petitions as well as grievance petition/labour appeals before Labour Court and Labour Appeallate Tribunal filed by different work charge employees. The perusal of record goes to evince that the National Accountability Bureau has also initiated proceedings under the charge of assets beyond known source of income wherein the entire property including bank accounts of the petitioner is already under caution. The petitioner is behind the bars since arrest and his physical custody is not required to the police anymore for further investigation. The accusation against the petitioner is only to the extent of receiving illegal gratification and not misappropriation/embezzlement of government funds and as such the provisions of Section 409, PPC prima facie do not attract to the facts and circumstances of the case, whereas all the remaining offences do not attract the prohibitory limb of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances, the case against the petitioner requires further probe and inquiry into his guilt under sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. and, thus, his further incarnation for an indefinite period would serve no useful purpose for the prosecution.
In view of what has been discussed above, the petition in hand is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- (rupees two lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
(A.A.K.) Bail allowed
0 Comments