BRIG (Rum) SAHIB DAD. KHAN vs THE STATE AND 2 OTHERS

ORDER

Brig. (Rtd.) Sahib Dad Khan Ex-Minister of the Provincial Cabinet is accused of the offences under sections 161, 409, P. P. C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The case was registered against him on 28.2-77. Another case under section 16 of the M. P.

0. Was registered against him the same day at Police Station, Kharian, District Gujrat.

2. The petitioner was incharge of the Punjab Peoples Festival. He is said to have issued a number of cheques to fictitious persons and an embezzlled amount of Rs. 73,000 from the festival fund has been detected so far. In November 1976, a cheque was alleged to have been issued by him in favour of the Fortress Stadium Canteen, Lahore Cantt. For the payment of entertainment charges of petitioner's family. It is alleged that the petitioner indiscriminately issued cheques of various amount without obaining sanction for payment. Besides the allegation of embazzlement of festival fund, the petitioner is also accused of other malpractices. He is said to have obtained illegal gratification from ticket examiners who were employed in the Transport Department, and a bus conductor was re-instated after obtaining bribe from him. A pre-qualification certificate was issued to one Ch. Bashir Ahmad after obtaining illegal gratification from him. It is also alleged that petitioner's son put up in the P. W. D. Rest house without lawful authority. A licence for the import of medicines was obtained in the name of petitioner's son which was later sold. It is also alleged that services of a Contractor were availed of without any payment. Learned Assistant Advocate- General has argued that the investigation is still in progress and some record has to be obtained from the petitioner.

3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for certain political reasons, the petitioner was removed from his office on 15-1-77. On 27-2-77, he joined the Tehreek-e-Istiqlal Party and on the following day the two cases were registered against him. It was next contended that the petitioner is a victim of political rivalry because of his differences with high personalities and for this reason petitioner apprehended that he may not be dealt with fairly in the district, therefore he did not apply for bail before the Special Judge and has applied direct to this Court. It was also contended that there is no statutory bar to apply direct to this Court in a bail matter. In support of the contention, reliance was placed on the case of Muhammad Samma v. The State . I have considered the matter. In view of the principle laid down in the cited case, there is no bar to a direct petition to this Court. Moreover, the petitioner was admitted to interim bail after necessary notice to the State,

4. It was further contended that the petitioner was falsely being accused of having taken away the account books with him. The Auditor's report dated 31.1-76 relating to Punjab People Festival of 1976 accounts was produced, according to which the accounts were found to be correct. However the correctness or otherwise of this report is a matter of detail and can only be gone into at the trial stage. It was also contended that in view of the nature of allegations, the custody of the petitioner would not be required because most of the allegations relate to rendition of accounts and in so far as the other allegations are concerned, for that the Investigating Agency will have to go through the official record and to record statements of various persons which would obviously entail a lengthy investigation. There is force in these submissions. It may also be mentioned at this stage that in arranging the Punjab People Festival, admittedly, several persons of various departments were engaged, but the petitioner is the sole accused in this case. However, it will be for the Investigating Agency to probe further into the matter. The investigation will require rendition of accounts and scrutiny of various documents from the Government departments, which will take some time. With regard to the other case under section 16 of th M. P.0., the investigation is complete and petitioner's custody is not required in that case for investigation. For the aforementioned reasons, the interim bail allowed to the petitioner in the two cases is confirmed. He is directed to join the investigation if and when required. 1976 SCMR 45