GHULAM RAZA ABADI vs THE STATE
The petitioner, a cashier at the Municipal Committee, Mianwali, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of misappropriation of funds amounting to Rs. 23,00,061. The petitioner argued that as a civil servant, the matter fell under the jurisdiction of the Anti-Corruption Establishment and that the local police lacked the competence to register the FIR. The State contended that the inquiry had been transferred to the Anti-Corruption Establishment and that a recovery of Rs. 3,29,000 had been made. The Court observed that the inquiry was ongoing and that the existing FIR would be treated as a complaint by the Anti-Corruption Establishment to determine if a criminal case was warranted. Holding that there was no legal justification to keep the petitioner incarcerated while the inquiry was pending, the Court granted bail, emphasizing the need to allow the petitioner to participate in the inquiry process. The Court also clarified that the State retains the legal right to seek bail cancellation at any stage if valid grounds arise.
- Does the local police have the authority to register a case for an offence under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when such offences are exclusively triable by a Special Court Anti-Corruption?
- Can the State file an application for the cancellation of bail after the submission of a challan?
- Is the continued detention of an accused justified when the inquiry into the alleged offence has been transferred to the Anti-Corruption Establishment for further investigation?
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered against him and Ghulam Nabi Ranjha, Accounts Officer, Municipal Committee, Mianwali vide, F.I.R. No, 185, dated 18-5-1999 for offence under section 409 of the P.P.C.
2. It is alleged in the F.I.R. That the present petitioner was employed as cashier of Municipal Committee, Mianwali and had received a number of amounts from different contractors but did not deposit the same in the accounts of the committee; that in this way the petitioner deprived the committee of a total sum of Rs, 23,00,061 during the years 1998-99. The petitioner was arrested on 2-8-1999.
3. The petitioner's learned counsel submits that the employees of the Municipal Committees have since been declared to be civil servants and their service appeals are filed before the Punjab Service Tribunal; that the offence under section 409 of the P.P.C. Is a scheduled offence, exclusively triable by the Special Court Anti-Corruption and that local police was not competent to register a case; that it should have been registered only with the Anti-Corruption Establishment, Sargodha Division, Sargodha. In this connection, he relies on the judgments in the cases of Muhammad Arshad Bhindar v. The State KLR 1997 Criminal Cases 631 and Zia Ullah Khan v. The State 1998 PCr.LJ 1833. He adds that the matter qua the petitioner's guilt requires further probe and inquiry. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel contends that the inquiry has since been entrusted to the Additional Director, Anti-Corruption, Faisalabad with effect from 13-4-2000; that a sum of Rs, 3,29,000 was recovered from the petitioner during the course of investigation.
4. Admittedly the inquiry has recently been entrusted to the Anti-Corruption Establishment, Faisalabad. The F.I.R. Already registered with the local police will be treated as a written complaint by the Anti-Corruption Establishment and after proper inquiry a decision will be taken by the competent Authority as to whether a criminal case should be registered with the Anti-Corruption Establishment or not. Therefore, at this stage, there is no legal warrant to keep the petitioner behind the bars. He should be given a fair opportunity to be associated with the inquiry and to prove his innocence.
5. The learned State Counsel prays that the State may be permitted to file a petition for cancellation of bail, if the petitioner is ultimately challenged in the case. There is no need to grant formal permission in this behalf. Under the law the State can file an application for cancellation of bail for any valid reason either before or after submission of challan against the accused- petitioner.
6. Therefore, the petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha.
Cited by 1 case
- SHOUKAT ALI Versus THE STATE 2003 MLD 1385