TEHSIL MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, MANDI BAHAUD-DIN through Tehsil
This criminal petition was filed by the Tehsil Municipal Administration seeking the cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 2 by the Special Court (Banking). The respondent was accused of presenting a forged cheque for encashment, leading to charges under sections 380, 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The petitioner argued that the Special Court had misconstrued the statement of a prosecution witness, Muhammad Ashraf, erroneously interpreting his testimony regarding the date of a confession as the date of the theft itself. The petitioner further highlighted that the respondent's earlier bail application had been rejected and that incriminating evidence, specifically stolen official seals, had been recovered at the respondent's instance. Upon reviewing the statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the High Court found that the witness's statement referred to the date of an extra-judicial confession, not the theft. Consequently, the Court held that the Special Court's reliance on a misinterpretation of evidence necessitated the cancellation of bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence involving misappropriation of public funds.
- Does a misinterpretation of prosecution witness testimony by a trial court constitute valid grounds for the cancellation of bail?
- Can the recovery of stolen property at the instance of an accused be considered incriminating evidence sufficient to warrant the cancellation of bail?
- Does an extra-judicial confession regarding the timing of an offence override a trial court's erroneous assumption about the date of the crime?
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Vide F.I.R. No,22 dated 4-2-2002, registered at Police Station City Mandi Bahauddin, under sections 380, 420, 468, 471. P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, it is alleged that respondent No,2 and his co-accused presented a forged cheque in the sum of 2,65,000. The Bank rang up the Tehsil Nazim to confirm the issue of cheque. When the Tehsil Nazim rushed to the Bank, the person presenting the cheque for en cashinent had disappeared. The above case was lodged on 4-2-2002. Learned Special Court (Banking) admitted respondent No,2/accused on bail on 26-4-2002.
2. In this application for cancellation, it is pleaded by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Special Court had proceeded on a wrong assumption, in that, it has construed the statement of Muhammad Ashraf (P.W.) to mean that in the presence of this P.W., the cheque was stolen on 9-2-2002 while the cheque had been allegedly presented for encashment on 2-2-2002.
By reading the statement, it is argued that actually what the P.W. Is stating is that the petitioner in his presence admitted the stealing of the cheque from the official cheque book and two official seals and thereafter preparing the forged cheque, Learned counsel has pointed out that first bail application of respondent No,2/accused was rejected by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, on 22-3- 2002. It is also argued that on the pointing out of the petitioner, the two seals stolen by respondent No,2 were recovered from the house of one, Muhammad Siddique. It is argued that had the learned Special Court not misunderstood the statement of Muhammad Ashraf, it would not have granted bail to respondent No,2. In reply, learned counsel for respondent No,2 has supported the impugned order and had also submitted that the respondent has already been released since 26-4-2002 and the bail may not be cancelled. Learned State council also does not support the plea of cancellation.
3. A perusal of the impugned order of Special COurt shows that the only reason for grant of bail was that Muhammad Ashraf P.W. Stated that in his presence on 9-2-2002, the petitioner made a confession that he stole the cheque on 9-2-2002, while the cheque had already been presented for encashment on 2-2-2002 and F.I.R. Had been registered on 4-2-2002.
4. F.I.R. Had been registered on 4-2-2002.
4.We have read the statement of Muhammad Ashraf made under section 161, Cr.P.C. The word "Imraz" in the statement refers to the date of extra-judicial confession made by the accused/respondent and not the date of theft of cheque. The recovery of the stolen seals/stamps at the behest of respondent No,2/accused from the house of Muhammad Siddique also incriminates the petitioner. The offence is serious, inasmuch as the forged cheque was sought to be en cashed and, but for the common sense and the wisdom of the Bank officials, the respondent/accused may as well have succeeded in misappropriating the public money.
5. In the circumstances and for the reasons have, we accept this application and cancel the to respondent No,2. Disposed of.
Bail cancelled.