SHAUKAT HUSSAIN SHAH Versus THE STATE
ORDER
Shaukat Hussain Shah and Maqbool Hussain petitioners have filed this petition for bail in a case registered against them under sections 409, 420 P.P.C. and section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Their co‑accused Muhammad Akram Sheikh, ex‑Project Manager, PASSCO, has filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1480‑B/1988 for bail in the same case. Both the petitions are being disposed of by this order.
2. The case was registered on the report of Mukhtar Ali Beg, General manager (Field) PASSCO, Lahore, wherein he alleged that "consequent, upon an information that while loading Railway wagons with wheat at Pattoki Railway Station meant for NWFP, PASSCO Officials responsible for loading and despatches of wheat were making short despatches as against the consigned weight, a Board of Officers was deputed on 20‑2‑1988 to open the wagons, check the quantity of wheat actually loaded and determine quantity of short despatches. The Board of Officers, which included representatives from Civil Administration Pakistan Railways and Watch & Ward Department opened 59 wageons, weighed the contents and determined a net short of 557. 527 tonnes of wheat valued at about Rs.14,49,000 in the consignee weight". It was further alleged that loading of wheat bags was affected /supervised by Muhammad Akram Sheikh DPM, Shaukat Shah, Purchase Inspector, Incharge Storage/Transit Point and Maqbool Hussain, API, Assistant Incharge PASSCO, who were posted at Storage Transit Point and were responsible for receipt of stocks at Pattoki Railway Station for further despatches to NWFP.
3. Learned counsel, for the parties had concluded their arguments on 12‑6‑1988. The petitions were ordered to be re‑listed as some points needed clarification. On behalf of Muhammad Akram Sheikh petitioner it was contended that he was not concerned with the stock lying in the godowns nor the relevant registers and other record was in his possession as he was not the incharge of Chunian Project; he was not present at Pattoki Railway Station on 17th, 18th and 19th February 1988 when the wagons were loaded and on a departmental inquiry he was found guilty only of negligence and was reverted to his substantive rank of Deputy Project Manager.
Mr. Rafiq Ahmad Bajwa, learned counsel for Shaukat Shah and Maqbul Hussain petitioners, contended that only 30 wagons were loaded when the checking was done and 29 wagons were still to be loaded, therefore, it cannot be said that there was a shortage so far as the quantity of wheat was concerned. Relying on Naveed Asif's case 1987 M L D 1714 he stated that bail cannot be withheld on the ground that heavy amount is involved. He further submitted that employees of PASSCO are not public servants within the meaning of section 21 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 2 (b) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, therefore, section 409 of the P.P.C. is not attracted and, at best, the allegations disclose an offence under section 408 P.P.C. which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners are public servants. Both the learned counsel have cited case law in support of their respective contentions. Learned State Counsel further submitted that a huge quantity of wheat of the value of Rs.14,49,000 is involved in the case, therefore, the petitioners are‑ not entitled to any concession.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the material available on the record. The wagons were loaded on 17th, 18th and 19th February, 1988. On inquiry the investigating officer conceded that no evidence showing the presence of Muhammad Akram Sheikh petitioner during that period at Pattoki Railway Station is available. It is also admitted that on al departmental inquiry he was found guilty of negligence and was reverted to his substantive rank of Deputy Project Manager. In Mushtaq Ali Shahid's case (1988 P Cr. L J 401), cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it was contended that the case had been registered with mala fide intention; PASSCO was a limited company and not Government Department, therefore, F.I.A. was not empowered to investigate the case. The Court observed that the "question whether PASSCO is a company owned by the Federal Government or that the offence allegedly committed by the applicant was in his capacity as a public servant is still to be established before the learned trial Court. Prima facie the contentions raised by Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Khan made out a case for confirmation of interim bail earlier granted to the applicant????" In this case the petitioners were arrested on 4‑4‑1988 and are in jail since then. Sanction for their prosecution has also to be obtained which will take quite some time. Without going into the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the ease of either party, I admit the petitioners to bail in the sum of Rs.3,00,000 (three lacs) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Special Judge (Central), Lahore.
S. A . /S‑266/L ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail allowed.