BASHARAT ALI CHAUDHRY vs THE STATE and another
This petition sought the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent (Sheikh Sadaqat Ali) by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore, in a case registered under sections 420/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The complainant alleged that the respondent facilitated illegal gratification to a police officer and caused financial damage in a vehicle transaction dispute involving dishonoured cheques and subsequent resale of the vehicle. The core legal question was whether the bail granted to the respondent should be cancelled given the allegations of fraud and corruption. The Court held that the respondent was not a government servant, making the applicability of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 a matter for the trial court to determine. Furthermore, the Court noted that the offence under section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is bailable, entitling the accused to bail as a matter of right. Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the trial court's exercise of discretion and dismissed the petition.
- Is an offence under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 bailable?
- Can bail be cancelled when the trial court has exercised its discretion in accordance with the law?
- Does the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 apply to a person who is not a government servant?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
ORDER
' MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM- UZ-ZAMAN, J.-Seeks cancellation of bail of Sheikh Sadaqat Ali (respondent No,2) in case F.I.R. No,77/2004, dated 30-1-2004 under sections 420/109, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2), P.C.A., 1947 registered at Police Station ACE, Lahore allowed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Lahore vide order, dated 30-3-2004.
2. In brief the case of the prosecution is that Basharat Ali complainant purchased a Coaster AC No,LHP-8271 from Major Retired Ahmad Haroon Rashied through Sh. Sadaqat Ali (respondent). A sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees Two Lac) was to be paid in advance and the remaining amount was to be paid in instalments at the rate of Rs, 15,000 per month. Basharat Ali complainant paid Rs, 1,00,000 in cash and the remaining amount of Rs, 1,00,000 in the form of cheque. On 9-5-2002 possession of the coaster was transferred to the complainant. The said vehicle was to be repaired by the respondent who got it repaired while incurring expenses in the sum of Rs,85,000. Thereafter, Basharat Ali complainant demanded registration book as well as the documents of the said vehicle from the respondent who informed that two cheques of Rs, 15,000 each, dated 15-6-2002 and 15-7-2002 issued, by him had already been dishonoured on 1-8-2002 from National Bank of Pakistan Walton Road Branch, Lahore. Basharat Ali complainant issued a cheque of Rs, 1,00,000 on 10-8-2002 and also a cheque of Rs, 15,000 on 15-8-2002 which were dishonoured on 12-9-2002.
However, the complainant took the said vehicle to Rahimyar Khan. The petitioner could not pay any instalment to Major Retired Ahmad Haroon Rashid as all the cheques given by the complainant have already been dishonoured. Hence, Major Retired Ahmad Haroon Rashied presented an application to S.H.O. P.S. Defence Area against the complainant which was referred to Sabir Ali A.S-I.
On 27-9-2002. Meanwhile, Major Retired Ahmad Haroon Rashid sold the same vehicle to Mst.
Farzana Zulfiqar for Rs,6,00,000 on 19-10-2002 when it was parked at P.S., Defence Area. As per contents of F.I.R., the complainant alleged that Sh. Sadaqat Ali respondent gave an illegal gratification to Sabir Ali A.S-I. And damaged the complainant. On the report of the complainant a case under sections 420/109, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2), P.C.A., 1947 was registered against the respondent by P.S., ACE, Lahore.
3. Heard. File perused.
' Admittedly respondent is not a Government servant and it is for the trial Court to see as to how far respondent could be held liable for the commission of offence falling under section 5(2), P.C.A., 1947 allegedly committed by his co-accused. As far section 420, P.P.C. Is concerned, the same is bailable and as a matter of right petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail. In this view of the matter I see no illegality in the impugned order whereby discretionary relief has been exercised in favour of the respondent. This petition has no merits, the same stands dismissed.