1. ' SH. RIAZ AHMAD, J.---The petitioners are accused of the commission of offcnces under section 409/420, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 in respect of an occurrence having taken place on 21st of May, 1992. The F.I.R. was lodged on 16th of June, 1992 by Vice-President/Zonal Head, U.B.L., Zonal Office, Chamber of Commerce Building, G.T. Road, Gujranwala.
2. ' Precisely, the allegation in the F.I.R. was that as a result of routine surprise checking of the bank on 21st of May, 1992 at about 1-30 p.m. a short fall of rS,3 million was detected and on enquiry made from Mehfoozur Rchman, petitioner who was a Cashier on duty, produced unposted/uncancelled cheque dated 21st of May, 1992 for a sum of rS,3 million drawn on CD Account No,9927. It transpired that this account was in the name of Muhammad Saleem, petitioner son of Sardar Muhammad who was an Assistant in the U.B.L. Khakwani Branch, Cloth Market, Gujranwala. The perusal of the said account further transpired that heavy transactions had been made in the said account.
3. According to the Zonal Manager, the checking was still in progress when through telegraphic transfer at about 2-30 p.m. a sum of rS,3 million was received from Chamber of Commerce Building Branch, Lahore, for credit to the aforesaid account in the name of Muhammad Saleem.
4. According to the prosecution case, Muhammad Saleem in collusion with the other petitioners/bank employees have been using the bank money by maintaining various accounts and have been doing business and in this way, they have been misappropriating the public money.
5. ' During the investigation, Muhammad Saleem denied that he was maintaining any account. His specimen signatures were, however, obtained and were compared with the signatures existing on account opening form and specimen signatures already available in the bank. The report of the hand writing expert has also been examined by us and we have ourselves compared the questioned signatures with the specimen signatures but we would refrain to make any comment at this stage lest it may prejudice the case of either party.
6. ' The crucial question arising for its determination would be whether Muhammad Saleem, in fact, was maintaining an account and had been dealing with the bank money for his wrongful gain. This fact will have to be determined by the investigating agency by making a reference to other transactions and obviously it requires further probein these circumstances.
7. Prima facie, there has been no permanent misappropriation of money having taken place in this case. However, temporary misappropriation did take place. A temporary misappropriation also amounts to misappropriation within the meaning of law. This observation is made without prejudice to the case of the petitioners/accused who may take any defence in the trial Court and it would not influence the mind of the trial Court in any manner whatsoever. At any rate, the investigation is in progress and would be completed within a fortnight time.
8. The petitioners were arrested in September, 1992 and more than three months have elapsed.
9. According to the Investigating Officer, he does not need the petitioners for making a further probe.
10. The allegations that Muhammad Saleem was maintaining an unauthorised account and was also doing transactions with the bank money in collusion with others would require enquiry which is definitely a lengthy task. The Investigating Officer would take sometime to reach a definite conclusion.
11. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to admit the petitioners to bail, provided, each of them furnishes security in the sum of Rs,5,00,000 (Rupees five hundred thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of District Magistrate, Gujranwala.