PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 135
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Sadiq Mahmud Khurram, J.
MUNTAZIR MEHDI--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 9457-B of 2023, decided on 21.12.2023.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----Ss. 498/498-A--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 161, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471--Prevention of Corruption Act, (II of 1947), S. 5--Government loss--Deposit of--Recovery of--Pre-arrest bail--Confirmation of--The Investigating Officer of the case submits that loss of Government Taxes and Fee, were deposited with regard to the sanction of the mutations--A similar allegation has been leveled against all Service Centre Officials, judicial action has not been approved rather only a direction has been issued that they be proceeded against under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 as commission of crime could not be detected with regard to them--The Investigating Officer has already collected all the relevant documentary evidence as well as recorded all the relevant statements during the course of investigation and has also successfully retrieved the loss of Government money during the investigation of the case--Nothing more stands to be recovered from them during the investigation of the case--The whole prosecution case is based on documentary evidence and already taken into possession--Sending the petitioner, behind the bars at this stage would cause irreparable loss to his reputation and would serve no useful purpose--Petition is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted is confirmed.
[Para 6] A, B, C, D & E
PLD 2017 SC 730 ref.
Khawaja Qaiser Butt, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ch. Muhammad Akbar, Additional Prosecutor General with Muhammad Naveed Anjum, Circle Officer, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Multan.
Date of hearing: 21.12.2023.
Order
Crl. Misc. No. 1559 of 2023
Through this petition, the petitioner seeks to place on record certain documents which, according to him, are essential for the just decision of the case.
2. For the reasons recorded in this petition, the same is allowed, subject to all just and legal exceptions. Crl. Misc. Stands disposed of.
Main case
3. Through this petition under Section 498, Cr.P.C. the petitioner, namely Muntazir Mehdi, seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 16 of 2020 dated 19.12.2020, registered in respect of offences under Sections 161, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, PPC and under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act No. II) of 1947, at the Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, District Multan.
4. The allegations against the petitioner, namely Muntazir Mehdi, culled from the evidentiary material produced before the Court, are that he in connivance with Abu Bakar, the former Land Record Officer, prepared and appended with the record forged computerized payment receipts and Form L.A.1 (T.R.6), Challan of Cash Paid into Bank/Treasury, resulting in loss of Rs. 5,39,340/-to the government exchequer.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Prosecutor General and with their able assistance perused the record.
6. This is a pre-arrest bail and only a tentative assessment of the evidentiary material produced before the Court can be made at this stage. The Investigating Officer of the case, present before the Court, submits that during the course of the investigation, it was determined that a loss of Rs. 5,39,340/-had been caused by the petitioner with regard to the deposit of various Government fees and taxes and the said taxes and fees had not been deposited but forged Computerized Payment Receipts and Form L.A.1 (T.R.6), Challan of Cash Paid into Bank/Treasury were submitted and retained by the petitioner and his co-accused, resulting in the loss, however, as the said Government Taxes and Fee were deposited with regard to the sanction of the mutations, therefore, the buyers with regard to whose properties, the mutations had been entered have already deposited the whole amount of Rs. 5,39,340/-and presently the loss caused by the petitioner stands recovered. Another aspect of the case is that a similar allegation has been levelled against Tauseef Iqbal, Amjad Noor, Muhammad Sibtain, Shahid Hussain and Mian Sadaqat Bodla all Service Center Officials, however, against the said co-accused of the petitioner, the judicial action has not been approved rather only a direction has been issued that they be proceeded against under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 as commission of crime could not be detected with regard to them. Presently, the evidentiary material against the petitioner is similar to that which was available and Tauseef Iqbal, Amjad Noor, Muhammad Sibtain, Shahid Hussain and Mian Sadaqat Bodla who were all posted as Service Center Officials at the relevant time as well as the petitioner, therefore, when it has been got determined that Tauseef Iqbal, Amjad Noor, Muhammad Sibtain, Shahid Hussain and Mian Sadaqat Bodla, the co-accused of the petitioner, were not involved in any crime, prima facie, a possibility does exist that the petitioner was also himself the victim of fraud played upon him by submission of forged Computerized Payment Receipts and Form L.A.1 (T.R.6), Challan of Cash Paid Into Bank/Treasury and the question as to whether the petitioner forged the said documents, is the question which needs further determination by the learned trial Court after the recording of evidence, however, presently no such determination can be made. The Investigating Officer of the case, as mentioned above, has already collected all the relevant documentary evidence as well as recorded all the relevant statements during the course of investigation and has also successfully retrieved the loss of Government money during the investigation of the case. Presently, the Investigating Officer of the case, submits that as the loss caused by the petitioner has been recovered, therefore, nothing more stands to be recovered from them during the investigation of the case. It is also a fact that the whole prosecution case is based on documentary evidence and already taken into possession. The version of the petitioner have already been verified by the Investigating Officer. The assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been involved in the occurrence due to mala fide and malicious intent, is an assertion, which cannot be said to be without basis or foundation. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, sending the petitioner, behind the bars at this stage would cause irreparable loss to his reputation and would serve no useful purpose. Reliance is placed on the case of “Khalil Ahmad Soomro and others v. The State” (PLD 2017 SC 730), wherein the following principle has been enunciated:
“Although for grant of pre-arrest bail one of the pre conditions is that the accused person has to show that his arrest is intended by the prosecution out of mala fide and for ulterior consideration. At pre-arrest bail stage, it is difficult to prove the element of mala fide by the accused through positive/solid evidence/ materials and the same is to be deduced and inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case and if some events-hints to that effect are available, the same would validly constitute the element of mala fide.”
7. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner, by this Court, vide order dated 07.12.2023, is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 200,000/-(Rupees two hundred thousand only) with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
8. It is clarified that the observations enumerated are absolutely tentative in nature and restricted only to the extent of this particular petition, having no nexus and relevance with the trial, which shall be concluded quite independently and purely on merit.
(M.A.B.) Petition allowed
0 Comments