' The petitioner seeks cancellation of bail through this petition which was allowed to respondents Nos.1 and 2 by the learned Judge, Special Court under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Court) Ordinance, Punjab, Lahore in case F.I.R. No,105, dated 19-2-2007 under sections 406/408/457/380/411, P.P.C. Police Station Mumtazabad, Multan.
2. The case was registered on report of Nisar Ahmad Farooqi petitioner who stated in the F.I.R. That he was Regional Manager of Muslim Commercial Bank (Ltd.) Multan. Messrs Jameel Jamshed and brothers were dealing in business of fertilizer. They obtained loan amounting to Rs,70 millions (seven crores) and pledged their stocks and mortgaged their property as security with the Bank.
Muhammad Azam was deputed as supervisor of the stocks. The partners of the firm and Muhammad Azam verified presence of 91,635 bags of DAP fertilizer in the godown situated at Bahawalpur bye-pass which was locked by the Bank. The aforesaid Azam informed the Bank Authorities that on the night between 17/18-2-2007 the partners of the firm had broken the locks of the godown and committed theft of DAP fertilizer by using 20/25 Trollies through about 100 labourers. The aforesaid Jamshed was contacted who confessed through writing that they in collusion with Muhammad Azam had stolen the stocks owned by the Bank. It transpired that DAP bags were replaced with Gypsum bags thereby stealing away goods of the value of Rs,7,00,000,00 (seven crores).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial Court had allowed bail to the respondents on the ground not even raised in the petition. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 were liable of commission of theft/embezzlement of huge amount of stocks. On this short. Ground they were not entitled to bail. The learned trial Court erroneously found that challan of the case had not been submitted though the challan was submitted in the Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate incorrectly.
The actual fact had been concealed by the respondents from the learned trial Court. No ground at all was mentioned while granting bail to Muhammad Azam respondent. The order granting bail to respondents Nos.1 and 2 therefore, was patently illegal, hence, the bail allowed to the said respondents was liable to cancellation. Reliance was placed on the authorities reported in 2003 YLR 1573, 2003 SCM R 1966, 2008 YLR 328 and 2007 YLR 286.
3. Opposing the petition learned counsel for Muhammad Jamshed Waqas respondent No,1 submitted that this respondent had been languishing in the jail for more than one year without any trial. The bail was granted to respondents inter alia under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. i.e, case to their extent was found to be one of further inquiry. The order granting bail was based on valid legal reasons. The grounds for cancellation of bail and grant of bail were altogether different. No legal ground for cancellation of the bail had been raised in this petition, therefore, the same was liable to dismissal.
4. Learned counsel for respondent Muhammad Azam respondent No,2 while reiterating the grounds taken by co-respondent further submitted that admittedly this respondent had passed on the information to the Bank Authorities, therefore, he was a witness. He had been booked in this case on the statement of his co-accused which had no value in the eyes of law, therefore, bail was correctly allowed to this accused.
5. It could not be controverted that respondent No,1 remained confined in the jail for a period of more than one year without any trial. If the challan was submitted in the wrong forum, the accused could not be made to suffer and benefit, if any, arising out of this lapse was to be allowed to such accused. Learned trial Court exercised the discretion in favour of respondent No,1 for this lapse which was quite in accordance with the established principles of law.
6. No direct evidence could be collected in support of the allegation that the total goods were taken away on the night between 17/18-2-2007 by about 100 labourers by means of 20/25 trollies in active collaboration of the two respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents referred to confessional statement of respondent No,1 copy of which was placed on record. This document is addressed to Chief Manager Muslim Commercial Bank (Ltd.) who under the given circumstances was a man in authority and provisions contained in Article 37 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 may take away the total force of this confession being irrelevant. We have carefully perused the record and were unable to find any material to hold that the total bags as alleged by the petitioner in the F.I.R. Were present at the spot when the loan was obtained or the same were missing after the occurrence as per the record. In the absence of any direct evidence, the case is found to be one of further inquiry. The main evidence against respondent No,2 is the aforesaid confessional statement of respondent No,1 the value of which shall be determined at the time of evidence.
7. In view of the above, none of the authorities referred above provides any help to the petitioner.
This petition is held to be without any force and is hereby dismissed.