NOOR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, the former Chairman of a Zakat and Ushr Committee, who was charged with the misappropriation of Zakat funds. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the allegations of distributing Zakat funds to non-deserving individuals, including his own relatives, and the resulting charge under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that the petitioner, entrusted with the pious duty of distributing Zakat to the deserving poor, had prima facie misappropriated these funds by distributing them to ineligible persons, including his brother-in-law. The Court determined that the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which restricts the grant of bail for offences punishable with imprisonment of ten years or more. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail application, establishing the principle that misappropriation of public funds, particularly those designated for the poor, constitutes a serious offence that disentitles an accused to the concession of bail at the pre-trial stage.
- Does the misappropriation of Zakat funds by a committee chairman fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when prima facie evidence suggests the distribution of public funds to non-deserving relatives?
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5, Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.---Noor Muhammad has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No.20 registered at Police Station, ACE, Bahawalnagar on 20-4-2005 for offence under section 409, P.P.C. Read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. Precisely, the allegation against the petitioner is that in his capacity as Chairman, Zakat and Ushr Committee, Chak No.20/3-R, Tehsil Haroonabad, he distributed Zakat Fund amounting to Rs.65,000 to the non-deserving persons and embezzled an amount of Rs.1,59,500. The petitioner was arrested on 30-12-2004 and is in jail after completion of investigation of the case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no record is available against the petitioner that he was a beneficiary of the amount distributed; that the amount was distributed to the persons who existed and have sworn affidavits to the effect that they had received the amount; that he was roped in a false case, as he refused to advance Zakat amount to Muhammad Hanif, who was Zimindar; that the amount was distributed to the persons after due scrutiny and sanction by the relevant authorities. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that sufficient incriminating evidence was available against the petitioner to connect him with the offence under section 409, P.P.C., which attracted the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; and that two prosecution witnesses have already been recorded and the petitioner did not deserve bail at this stage.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant record of the case.
5. It has be noticed that the petitioner who was Chairman of Zakat and Ushr Committee, distributed Rs.25,000 to his brother-in-law (Bahnoi) Muhammad Shafiq, who was a Zimindar and did not deserve Zakat amount. He also distributed Rs.25,000 to one Barish Ali who was resident of Khanewal and also did not deserve any Zakat amount. The petitioner was entrusted with a very pious job of distributing the Zakat Fund to the deserving poor people and a heavy responsibility laid on him. He, unfortunately, did not realize the demand of his job and misappropriated the Zakat Fund meant for helping the poor by distributing it to the non-deserving persons. Prima facie, his act falls within the mischief of offence under section 409, P.P.C. Which attracts the prohibition contained in section 497, Cr.P.C.
' In the above noted circumstances, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner to bail. This application is dismissed.