FATEH MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE
This is a criminal miscellaneous application seeking post-arrest bail in respect of F.I.R. No. 16 of 2002 registered under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 at Police Station A.C.E., District Sargodha. The core legal question concerns whether the accused, a Patwari alleged to have deceitfully collected excessive agricultural tax and misappropriated the differential amount, is entitled to post-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court held that the departmental inquiry record and the subsequent deposit of a portion of the defalcated amount prior to the case registration prima facie established the petitioner's involvement in a heinous offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court laid down that where prima facie evidence establishes the misappropriation of public funds and falls within the prohibitory clause, post-arrest bail is unwarranted, and accordingly dismissed the petition while directing the trial court to conclude the trial within six months.
- Whether an accused involved in the misappropriation of public funds under Section 409 P.P.C. is entitled to post-arrest bail when the case falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
- Does the deposit of a defalcated amount prior to the registration of a criminal case exonerate the accused from prima facie involvement in the offence?
- Can bail be refused when a departmental inquiry and record prima facie establish the commission of a heinous offence?
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,16 of 2002 dated 1-4-2002 under section 409, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2), P.C.A., 1947 registered at Police Station A.C.E., District Sargodha.
2. In brief the allegation against the petitioner is that he being Patwari Halqa Chak No,52-A.N.B. In his official capacity received Rs,12,22,000 as agricultural tax for the year 1997-98 from the inhabitants of the statedly this amount was much more than the amount fixed by the Revenue Department vide Notification dated 22-10-1997. Allegedly the petitioner deposited Rs,22,085 (amount shown in the notification) with the Government Treasury and misappropriated the rest of the amount.
3. Bail is sought on the grounds that the allegations against the petitioner is absolutely false and baseless; that the petitioner had already deposited Rs,1,19,739 before the registration of present case; that there is no documentary evidence about the misappropriation of the amount; that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than six months and there is no progress in the trial.
Conversely learned counsel for the State while supporting the impugned order vehemently opposed this bail application.
4. Heard. File perused.
5. The fact that the petitioner in his official capacity deceitfully received excessive amount under the pretext of agricultural tax for the year 1997-98 from the inhabitants of Chak No,52-A and misappropriated the same stands established from the record of departmental inquiry as well as from the admitted fact that the petitioner had deposited the defalcated amount in the Government Exchequer before the registration of present case. Prima facie the said circumstances are sufficient to show the involvement of the petitioner for the commission of heinous offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition having no merits, stands dismissed.
6. Since the challan in this case has already been submitted, the trial Court is directed to conclude the matter within six months.
Cited by 1 case
- AMANULLAH vs THE STATE and another 2009 YLR 260