MOHAMMAD AMIR MALIK, J.- Case against the petitioner, who was posted as Ineharge National Saving Centre, firstly at Islampura Branch and then at Fortress Stadium for offences under Sections 409,420,468,471 PPC read with Section 5 of Act II of 1947 (Prevention of Corruption Act), was registered on the - statement of Mian Muhammad Shafique, Assistant Director (Hors) Directorate of National Saving, Lahore after departmental enquiry on 3-8-1992. The precise allegations are that while posted as Incharge of the Centres, he misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,01,300/-. The details given are that one Mrs. Ghazala Rashid purchased special saving certificates of the value of Rs.
24,00,000/- on 1-3-1990 and got encashed Rs.15,00,000/- certificates on 21-2-91. The period for the next instalment of profit was to fall on 1-3-91. The trick played was that the signatures of the certificate holder were obtained on the back of the certificates without date, this date was put later on, so that certificates became entitled to earn profit and the profit of Rs.93,750/- was pocketed.
Similarly, in the other two transactions of Mrs. Salomi Danial and Muhammad Hassan, not only that the profit was digested by substituting the dates but even the Zakat deducted was digested without entry in the account books.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there was no recovery of any amount from the petitioner, recoveries of the alleged moneys had been effected from some of the other co-employees and even some public persons and thus the case of the petitioner was of further enquiry. Furthermore, reliance has been placed upon Faqir Muhammad Vs. The state (NLR 1982 Cr.LJ. 237( 11. Mir Akhtar Khan Khattak Vs. The State (NLR 1983 Criminal 29 and PLD 1982 Peshawar 128) and Khalid Mahmood Bokhari Vs. The State (1988 P.Cr.L.J. 607) to contend that even if the embezzlement was there, the investigation being complete, there was no use to keep the petitioner behind the bars and he was entitled to bail as the ultimate sentence that could be awarded was not beyond ten years. On the other hand, the learned Federal counsel has contended that the petitioner was the incharge of the two Centres, the case is still under investigation, the petitioner was so influential that his physical remand beyond seven days was not given with the result that no recovery could be effected and in the record there was clear manipulation which could not be.
But by the petitioner and so he did not deserve to be granted bail.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties it seems that favour was done to the petitioner when his physical remand was refused though recovery was yet to be effected. He was the incharge of the National Saving Centres and so ultimate responsibility lay with him. If some other employees under him were also given part of the profits individually to digest thereby petitioner's responsibility is not absolved. We are in the throes of a national malady of white collar corruption at a very large scale, so such like offences must be met with heavy hands. The reports relied upon by the learned counsel of course, help him but with the insertion of Article 2-A in the Constitution the law is to be interpreted in the Islamic spirit. A citizen, and that too, a public servant entrusted with the public moneys, if commits offences like the one in hand, he is not only guilty of the offence against an individual but the society Nation as a whole. Particularly when the intellectual classes, start indulging in such activities on a vast scale, the whole national fabric is likely to be shattered. In this view of the matter no ground for bail. The petition is dismissed.