M.A. ZAFAR, J. - Mohsan Mushtaq, the petitioner who is complainant of case F.I.R. No. 438/08, dated 11.9.2008 for offence under Sections 408, 420, 468, 471, PPC registered with Police Station Motra, District Sialkot has filed this petition under Section 497(5), Cr.P.C. For cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to Muhammad Yousaf respondent by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Daska vide order dated 29.11.2008.
2. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that he presented cheques, before Manager ABL Main Branch Sialkot for payment to him. The said cheques were allegedly issued of exaggerated amount by the petitioner's son who was employed in the Silver Star Factory as receiving Incharge.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the cheques issued by the petitioner's son in the name of the different parties who used to supply goods to the company were encashed by the petitioner from the bank.
4. The learned DPG also supports the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/accused submits that there is no evidence connecting the respondent with the commission of offence and the petitioner being father of Altaf against whom there are main allegations he has been involved in this case and the respondent was abducted by the hired assassin of the company and got the sale-deed executed from him in favour of Silver Star Company and they also took her snaps entering the factory. He further submits that on the application of the petitioner moved by the learned Justice of Peace a case under Sections 365, 337-A.I, 337-A.II, PPC was also registered with Police Station City Daska vide F.I.R. No. 90/2009, dated 29.1.2009.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I have noticed that there is no allegation against the respondent that he forged the signatures or figures of the cheque in any manner whatsoever. The only allegation against him is that he used to collect amount of the cheque issued by his son on behalf of the company in the name of different persons by signing on the back of the cheques. After going through the police file I have noticed that there are copies of some cheques and on the back of said cheques the signature in whose name the same was issued but the petitioner being illiterate only thumb mark and the police during the investigation has not either got compared his signatures with the signature affixed on the back of the cheques while receiving the amount. At present there is no evidence at-all to connect the respondent with the commission of offence and mere fact that his son mis-appropriated a huge amount by issuing cheques on behalf of the company without tempering its figures would hardly constitute an offence, as far as present respondent is concerned. The learned counsel for the petitioner admits that after withdrawal, of amount from the bank by issuing a cheque of exaggerated amount, petitioner son Altaf has been paying the exact amount to a person in whose name he used to issue the cheque. There is no cavil with the proposition that once the concession of bail is extended to the accused involved in a criminal case strong and exceptional ground has to be made out for the cancellation of bail because the consideration for the grant of bail and those for cancellation of bail are different and they are para meterial with the principle of interfering in appeal against- acquittal.
7. For the foregoing reasons, there is no good ground to interfere in a discretionary order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot granting bail to respondent, therefore, the application is dismissed.