' FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.--- Petitioner Arif Barlas, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 154, dated 2-5-2005, under sections 408, 419, 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C., registered at Police Station, Multan Cantt., District Multan.
2. Briefly, the facts of the prosecution case are that the petitioner Arif Barlas was working as Manager in Advertisement Department along with Muhammad Abbas, Mst. Robina Kausar and Rajab Ali. All these three persons were assigned duty for collection of the business for the complainant's management and to recover the charges and deposit the same with the office. On the audit inspection, it came to the knowledge of the complainant that the petitioner Arif Barlas and his co-accused embezzled a huge amount of Rs,30,00,000, hence this case.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner was appointed as Manager, Advertisement on 26-9-2002. It was the beginning of the Institution prior to the appointment of the petitioner, Younis Arain used to run the office of Manager Advertisement for a period of two and half months. For a very short period of almost three months in that era, Younis Arain, conducted business of Rs,19,44,162 from which Rs,14,5,399 was outstanding meaning thereby that the recovery in Advertisement Department is always slow and is not prompt. This department carries on business on credit and if any amount becomes due that is always considered due against the party whose advertisement was published and not against the employee of the newspaper.
Further contends that in the era of the petitioner, the total business of Advertisement Department comes to rupees twenty millions approximately and according to the report, dated 23-3-2005, only an amount of Rs,36, 32,000 was outstanding against the parties which speak volume for the efficiency of the petitioner. Also contends that as per F.I.R., at the most a case for rendition of accounts or recovery of amount from the party is made out and not criminal case. The computerized accounts reports/summary, dated 30-4-2005 postulates that according to their own record, an amount of Rs,4,51,786 is due against; Accredited Agencies, Rs,6,10,496 is due against correspondents, Rs,6,10,133 against non-accredited agencies and Rs,15,75,220 are outstanding against direct parties, total of which comes to Rs,36,33,068. If total amount as mentioned in the F.I.R.
Comes to Rupees three millions, then more than the amount mentioned is due against the parties.
So the complainant with mala fide intention has shown all the outstanding amount which had been embezzled by the petitioner. The amount pertaining to adjustment cases, present in the shape of cheques has also malafidely been shown as outstanding against the petitioner? Further contends that it has wrongly been mentioned in the F.I.R. That after almost three years it transpired in the audit of accounts that the above mentioned amount was embezzled. According to the policy of Daily Jang, the Accounts Office makes post-publication checking report/audit on daily basis and before publication of any article; the condition of payment is verified by the concerned Accounts Department. Also contends that the bald allegation in the F.I.R. Does not constitute any offence. The mala fide on the part of complainant and the police is apparent on the face of the record. The petitioner is a highly qualified respectable citizen and he never remained involved in any kind of unlawful activity, but in the said F.I.R., the complainant and the police had caused damage to his honour and dignity. The only malice behind this activity is that the petitioner refused to fulfil the nefarious designs of Ibrar Ahmad Chishti and Jamil Chishti, which resulted into exchange of hot words between them so many times. Further contends that during this period of three years petitioner remained in service till 11-6-2005, the F.I.R. Was recorded on 2-5-2005 and he was arrested on 19-7-2005 and since then, is behind the bars. Further submits that from 2002 to 2005 i,e, within three years nothing was found to be embezzled by any Department nor any show- cause notice was issued to the petitioner. There is no audit or inquiry report on the file except the F.I.R. The alleged amount is outstanding against the different parties and their names are mentioned in the documents. Reliance has'been placed in this behalf on the following cases:--
(i) Abid Khan v, The State 2005 PCr.LJ 985; (ii) Saeed Ahmad v. The State 196 SCMR 1132; and (iii)
Abdul Qudus v. The State 2002 PCr.LJ 430.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant submits that in such cases of embezzlement, delay in lodging the F.I.R. Is not material. Further submits that the complainant was authorized to lodge the F.I.R. The petitioner had caused a great loss to the reputation of a well-renowned newspaper. Further submits that it has been held in 2004 PCr.LJ 1885 that in misappropriation cases of such nature where a loss is caused to the Institution, the bail granted was recalled by the High Court. In 2004 SCM R 729, an offence under sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. Bail granted by the High Court was rightly cancelled. Also submits that it is not a fit case for grant of bail. There is evidence on record that the petitioner had been receiving the amounts directly from the clients without showing any receipts.
5. Learned State Counsel states that in Zimni No, 26, it is admitted by the petitioner that he misappropriated the money and is prepared to deposit the same. Further submits that it is internal policy of the newspaper that the Review Control Committee shall meet once a week and shall tabulate the account and re-verify the same. Here in the present case, no meeting was held. No show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner Arif Barlas. Further states that there are statements of different persons/clients who had made payments to the petitioner, which clearly involves the petitioner in the present case. There is no evidence against Muhammad. Abbas co-accused which may involve him in this case and the prosecution has no objection if he is released on bail. So far as the case of Arif Barlas petitioner is concerned, learned State Counsel submits that the recovery is yet to be effected from him as per his admission.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the relevant law on the subject. Admittedly, it is a case of embezzlement alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, which he received from different Institutions, companies, private individuals for the advertisement published in the daily Jang. As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that it was the duty of the petitioner to arrange the business of advertisement and to collect the costs of advertisement from the market. The petitioner Arif Barlas, who was Incharge of the Advertisement Department and was found to have received the amounts from the parties, but did not deposit the same with the Institution and it transpired that the petitioner, Mst. Robina Kausar and Abbas by showing fake companies had embezzled the amounts of the Institutions. As per F.I.R., embezzlement took place from 2002 to 2005 within a period of three years and during this period, there must be some different audits, but nothing was found. However, the alleged embezzlement as per F.I.R had taken place between 2002 to 2005 and the F.I.R. Was lodged on 2-5-2005 with a delay of three years and this inordinate delay is unexplained. There is nothing on record to show that any show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the complainant. The F.I.R. Was lodged when the petitioner left the service. The case apinst the petitioner entirely depended upon documentary evidence which was in possession of the prosecution and there was no possibility of tampering with the same by the petitioner. The petitioner was charged with offences, which do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Sections 468 and 471, P.P.C. Are non- cognizable offences.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant had laid main stress upon working and reputation of the Institution which has been damaged due to the act of the petitioner. Submits that besides criminal act, the petitioner had led the Institution to bad reputation, which had adversely reflected on the organization having such a large publication. Nevertheless, it is a matter of record that the petitioner stands booked for offences which do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Besides the offences under sections 468 and 471, P.P.C. Are non-cognizable. The case against the petitioner entirely depends upon the documentary evidence, which is in possession of the prosecution and there is no possibility of its tampering with if the petitioner is released on bail.
The complainant had not hold the meeting which was scheduled to be held with a C.R.C.C. To monitor the affairs of the company. The negligence on the part of the complainant organization reflects otherwise on its bona fides. It is on the record that the major portion of the alleged embezzled amount is outstanding and due from different organizations etc. The petitioner was not served with any show-cause notice for the said embezzled amount.
8. In this view of the matter, case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry as envisaged under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Therefore, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,00,000 (Rupees fifty lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.