Rana MUHAMMMAD AMIN vs The STATE

ORDER

1. ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.-The petitioner, alongwith 10 other persona, is facing prosecution under sections 406, 420, 466, 467, 468, 470 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 120-B thereof and rule 49 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, on the allegations that they entered into a conspiracy to defraud the Government Treasury to the extent of 2-76 crores of rupees by setting up a fake Federal] Development Authority with offices at Bahawalpur, Rahimyar Khan and Multan and that in pursuance of the said conspiracy they, in fact, managed to draw the amount just mentioned from the National Bank of Pakistan. One Sana Ullah alias Aslam Shah was mentioned as the principal accused. A First Information Report was registered in this behalf at Bahawalpur Civil Lines Police Station on the 31st of March, 1977, and another First Information Report was also registered on the same day- at Old Kotwali Police Station, Multan. It is said that on the 7th of April, 1977, a sum of Rs. 3.56 lacs was recovered from the possession of the petitioner when he was intercepted on the Sutlej Bridge near Bahawalpur city whsle proceeding in a car towards Karachi.

2. The main ground on which bail has been refused by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, by his order dated the 29th of April, 1978, is that this was a unique case and the fraud committed was so perfect that for a long time it was never detected, and that it was a team work, with the result that there was prima facie evidence to show the involvement of the petitioner, from whom a substantial amount of the stolen money had been recovered. The learned Judge was not impressed by the contention that the petitioner's case was identical with that of some of the other co-accused who had been allowed bail.

3. It is contended by Rana Muhammad Sarwar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that Sana Ullah, the principal accused, was inimical towards the petitioner and had falsely involved him in this case, and that the alleged recovery of Rs. 3,56,000 was, in fact, in the nature of an extortion, the money having been collected by the petitioner and his relatives under pressure from the investigation authorities.

4. On behalf of the State, the learned Assistant Advocate-General, Mr. Asif Jan, has opposed the grant of bail not only on merits, but has also pointed out that the case having been referred to a Special Military Court by an order passed by the Martial Law Administrator, Punjab on the 18th of August, 1977, under Martial Law Orders Nos. 36 and 37, the ordinary Courts had not --jurisdiction in the matter. He submits that unfortunately this point wall not brought to the notice of the High Court, but he has placed on the record a copy of the aforesaid order.

5. In view of the submissions made by the learned Assistant Advocate. General, we consider that the case stands competently withdrawn from the ordinary Courts of law for trial by a Special Military Court, and, accordingly, we have no jurisdiction to grant bail to the accused. This matter should have been brought to the notice of the High Court by the learned counsel appearing for the State.

6. In the circumstances the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

7. The petitioner may, if so advised, move the Military Court concerned for the grant of the bail.