ZAFAR LQB4L Versus STATE

ORDER

Muhammad Rafiq Inspector ACE Sheikhupura, got a case registered under sections 409, 420, 468, 471, 467, P.P.C. read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 against the petitioner, a clerk in the office of Assistant Education Officer (Women), Sangla Hill, Sheikhupura.

The prosecution version is that two salary bills, relating to October 1986 for the employees in the girls schools falling in Sangla Hill‑circle Sheikhupura, were prepared and submitted in the office of the District Accounts Officer, Sheikhupura. One of the bills related to the nationalised schools and was for Rs.66,501.68 while the other pertained to regular schools and was for Rs.4,41,033.72. The bill for Rs.66,501.68 was passed by the District Accounts Officer, Sheikhupura and the petitioner received the said bill fraudulently by scribing an authorisation in his own favour atop the seal of the Assistant Education Officer/W, Sangla Hill, Sheikhupura and thereafter obtained the amount and misappropriated the same. The other bill for Rs.4,41,033.72 was not passed by the District Accounts Officer as it was detected that the bill originally was for Rs.3,78,235.80 and it had been tampered with. Allegation against the petitioner regarding the last mentioned bill is that he tampered with it in a bid to obtain an amount of about Rs.60,000 with the intention to misappropriate the same.

3. The petitioner was arrested on 21‑7‑1987. He filed an application for bail which has been dismissed by the learned Senior Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, Punjab, Lahore, vide order dated 2‑8‑1987. Hence this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent; that the salaries for the month of October 1986 were properly disbursed; that the Department concerned did not make any complaint against the petitioner; that the matter is one of accounts; and that no recovery is to be made from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application.

5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In the absence of any complaint by the Education Department accusing the petitioner of either forgery or misappropriation, the matter appears to be one of further inquiry regarding the accounts maintained in the office of the AEO/W, Sangla Hill. On the question of forgery, the prosecution has so far not collected any evidence fixing the responsibility on any particular individual and the Investigating Officer has stated that signatures of three persons including the petitioner, have been sent for comparison and report in this behalf but the report has not been received so far. In this view of the matter, there is no use in keeping the petitioner in jail. He is, therefore, allowed bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A . C . /Duty Magistrate, Sheikhupura.

M. Y.H./2‑24/L Bail granted.