The petitioner is, an Assistant Vice-President in the National Develop--ment Finance Corporation and is posted as Branch Manager at Lahore. On the information supplied by a Senior Vice- President of the Corporation a case under sections 409, 420, 468 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code has been registered against him at Police Station Civil Lines, Lahore. He has applied for bail before arrest.
2. A company known as Messrs Chiltan Ghee Mills, Quetta, had taken a loan from the National Development Finance Corporation. In March, 1981 an instalment in the sum of Rs. 1,82,003.95 became due from the firm on account of the said loan. On 15th March, 1981 the Corpora--tion sent a notice to the firm for the payment of the amount. On 26th March, 1981 the firm obtained a bank draft for the whole of the amount due from the National Bank of Pakistan, Quetta Branch, in favour of the Corporation and sent it to the petitioner's branch by post. The petitioner received the draft.
On 30th March, 1981 he took the draft to the Fleming Road Branch of the United Bank Limited where his own brother was posted as the Manager. The Corporation had no account with this branch of the Bank. On the same day through this branch the draft was encashed and the petitioner placed the entire amount in a short term fixed deposit with the said branch in the name of the Corporation.
3. The petitioner had his own private account with the Corporation. Instead of crediting the firm with the amount of the draft he used the receipt of the fixed deposit for the purpose of showing that it represented his own money which be had paid into the account of the Corporation. On the basis of this false representation he had his own personal account with the Corporation credited with an amount equal to that of the fixed deposit. It may be mentioned that on 28th March, 1981 the petitioner's account with the Corporation showed a credit of Rs. 50 only.
4. After having his personal account with the Corporation credited with the amount of the fixed deposit he withdrew a total sum of Rs. 1,85,000 from the Corporation on different dates as indicated below:- Sr. No.Date Amount Rs.
1. 30-3-8115,000
2. 31-3-811,00,000
3. 4-5-8170,000 In July, 1981 the audit of the petitioner's branch took place. During the audit the irregularities committed by the petitioner with regard to the above transaction also came to the notice of the Corporation. To cover up his action the petitioner on 25th July, 1981 deposited a sum of Rs. 96,000 with the Corporation. Subsequently on 29th August, 1981 when he was charge-sheeted he deposited another sum of Rs. 86,000 with the Corporation.
5. Before I consider the contentions raised in support of this petition I may state that the questions whether the petitioner has committed any offence or offences and, if so, as to what are those offences are entirely for the trial Court to decide. The observations which I have made in this order are only of ad hoc nature and should be entirely ignored by the trial Court.
6. To begin with the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has been accused of offences falling under sections 420, 468, 471 and 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The offences under sec--tions 420, 468 and471 are punishable with imprisonment for a period less than ten years. Consequently, the bar contained in section 497 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure that bail should not be granted to a person against whom there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprison--ment extending upto ten years, is not applicable. As regards the offence under section 409 which is punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment extending upto ten years, the learned counsel argues, it is not attracted to the case of the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner is nova public servant, banker, merchant, factor, broker attorney or agent. I do not think that I can agree with the learned counsel for as Branch Manager these can be little doubt that he is an agent of the Cor--poration. I would therefore repel this contention.
7. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had not kept with himself the amount of the draft but that he had placed it in a fixed deposit in the name of the Corpora--tion. Consequently, there was no misappropriation of the said amount. He also argues that at the worst the petitioner can be said to have got his own personal account with the Corporation swollen through misrepresen--tation to the effect that the fixed deposit had been made with his own money. Again I do not think that I can agree with the learned counsel. The receipt obtained by the petitioner from the United Bank was the property of the Corporation. As the Manager of the Corporation he was a trustee of the receipt. As part of his duties for which he was employed he was required to use the receipt for crediting the amount thereof in the account of the firm ; instead he used it for the purpose of drawing very large amounts for his personal purpose from his account with the Corporation. Prima facie, therefore, the act of the petitioner fell within the definition of criminal breach of trust as given in section 405 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
8. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even if there was any conversion it was of temporary nature and as such this was not a case where either the sentence of imprisonment for life or an imprisonment extending upto ten years was at all likely to be awarded.
He further contended that this being the position the bar contained m section 497 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not attracted. In support of his contention he referred to the cases of Amir v. State (1973 P Cr. L J 205) and Muhammad Altaf v. Nazir Ahmad (PLD 1975 Lab. 568). These authorities no doubt bear out his contention. It is also to be noticed that the investigations are complete and according to the investigating officer the person of the petitioner is no longer required by the police. I would therefore confirm the interim bail.