ORDER M.A. ZAFAR, J. - Junaid Rabbani petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No, 89/2008, dated 20.2.2008 registered with Police Station Jaranwala, District Faisalabad at the instance of One Ali Akbar under Sections 408/50&, P.P.C.
2. Allegation against the accused-petitioner Junaid Rabbani as per the contents of F.I.R, is that the complainant Ali Akbar has a Franchise of Telenor Mobile Company situated at P-74 Batala Colony, '
Satiana Road, Faisalabad, wherein Ghulam Ali was appointed as Finance Manager, Imran was appointed as Sales Manager and Junaid Rabbani present accused-petitioner as Sales Officer. It was the responsibility of the Finance Manager Ghulam Ali to issue stock regarding sims and scratch cards which, was issued by him to the Sales Manager Imran and Junaid, Sales Officer, Jaranwala from time to time for the sale in the market. Some of the sale was deposited with the Finance Manager Ghulam Ali whereas rest of the amount was shown, as credit in the market by the accused Junaid Rabbani and Imran. That when an amount of Rs.38,00,000/- (thirty eight lac) on one account and Rs. 9,35,000/- on second account was found outstanding against the accused Imran and present accused/petitioner,. They were called by the complainant to clear their position and they admitted to have taken the stock of above said amount on their end and further admitted .To have deposited Rs. 20,89,354/- out of this amount with the Finance Manager Ghulam Ali. Ghulam Ali, Finance Manager admitted that only Rs. 20,89,354/- was deposited by the accused Imran and Junaid Rabbani but he have not deposited rest of the. Amount in the account of franchise and promised to pay the said amount almost twenty-one lac to the complainant in writing and fixed dates for making payment through installments agreed by the complainant.
Junaid Rabbani also admitted, to have misappropriated the amount taken by him from time to time as stock sims and scratch cards in writing before the complainant. Accused Imran also made admission and promised to pay back the amount. That the petitioner and other accused (Ghulam Ali & Imran) were taking time from the complainant on different pretexts but now Imran and Junaid present petitioner extended threats of murder and dire consequences to the complainant, reasons being the complainant forwarded an application for the registration of case against them before D.I.G. Operation who. Referred the said application to the SHO P.S. Jaranwala for necessary proceedings. That SHO P.S. Jaranwala did not pay any heed to it, on which the complainant fled an application ' under Section 22-A/22-B for the registration of case against the accused whereby on the order of-the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jarapwala dated 19.22008, this case was registered against the accused. .
3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present, case; that petitioner was Sales Officer and what ever stock was issued to him he after selling the same in the market had deposited the amount of sale on daily basis to the head office of the Franchise at Faisalabad; that according to the decision of the Punchiats an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was found due against the petitioner and he gave a cheque of Rs.
2,00,000/- accordingly and that the offence with which the petitioner has been charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause.
4. On the. Other hand, learned D.P.G, who is assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitioner was entrusted with the duty which he failed to perform and he alongwith others embezzled the amount of Rs. 38,00,000/- ,.
5. After hearing the learned counsel. For the parties and perusing the record I find that petitioner admitted his liability in writing and also admitted the same in the presence of the witnesses namely Ikram Ullah and Muhammad Nasrullah and the police has recorded their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C, and they have supported the contents of the FLR. The evidentiary value of the admission made by the petitioner before the complainant and the witnesses coupled with the acknowledging his liability in writing will be considered by the learned Trial Court after recording and evaluating the evidence produced by the parties during the trial; Since huge amount has been embezzled, I am not inclined to grant bail despite the fact that offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, In case not falling within the prohibitory clause bail cannot be claimed as a writer of right. Reliance is placed on the cases Muhammad Sidsique v. Imtiaz Begum (20O2 SCMR 442), Muhammad Afzal&others v. The State (1997 SCM R 278) and Imtiaz Ahmed & another v. The State (PLD 1997 S.C. 545).
6. For the foregoing reasons there is no force in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
However, since the petitioner is in custody for the last more than six months, learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial on or before 31.12.2008. Compliance report be submitted through D.R.
(Judl.) of this Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.