A case under section 218/109/161/409/420, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was registered on the statement of A.U. Saleem, Director-General, Lahore Development Authority against Brig. (Retd.) Manzoor Malik and others with Police Station Anti--- Corruption Establishment, Lahore, vide 'F.I.R. No. 19/94, dated 10-6-1994.
2. The case, in brief, is that Mst. Naveed Malik is the wife of Brig. (Retd.) Manzoor Malik, the petitioner.
On 13-5-1989, the petitioner was posted and performing his function as Director-General of L.D.A.
An application was given by Mst. Naveed Malik for allotment of a plot to her. The petitioner with mala fide, got allotted Plot No. 27-A, Sharif Park, Lahore (Shah Jamal Scheme) in the name of his aforesaid wife. A favourable summary was prepared and presented to the then Chief Minister, Punjab, whereupon the plot in question was approved for its allotment to the wife of the petitioner.
On 14-1-1990 allotment order was issued in favour of Mst. Naveed Malik. A necessary condition of allotment of the plot was that a Medical Centre would be constructed by the new allottee over the plot and that 50% of the people would be given treatment free of costs while the remaining 50% would be treated on payment of costs. The aforesaid condition was not intentionally mentioned in the allotment order dated 14-1-1990 in order to have wrongful gain. On the same day, a petty sum of Rs. 33,557 was deposited by the allottee as price of the plot. In a hurry, a plan was also sanctioned on 16-1-1990. On 26-8-1990, Haji Muhammad Sharif was given a General Power of Attorney by the allottee whereby he was authorised to sell the said property. The ground---floor was constructed to be used as a Clinic while flats were raised over it to generate incomes. On 30- 8-1990, the property, was sold for a sum of Rs. 48,00,000 (Rupees forty-eight lacs). In other words, the case is that the petitioner by playing fraud and misrepresentation got allotment of Government property in the name of his wife and thereafter sold it for a huge amount of Rs. 48,00,000 to the disadvantage of the State Exchequer.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner forcefully contends that there is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime. He continues to argue that the petitioner is a known heart-patient and that his condition is deteriorating day-by-day because no effective treatment is being given to him in Jail Hospital. Learned counsel adds that it has been opined by two leading heart-specialists of the country, namely, Dr. Shehryar and Dr. Zubair, that the petitioner is in need of a specialised treatment without any loss of further time. The bail application has been opposed tooth and nail by the learned Advocate-General, Punjab. He contends that allegations against the petitioner are, indeed, serious in nature inasmuch as allotment of the plot in question was obtained by the petitioner by fraud because at the relevant time, he was posted as Director-General, L.DA.
And, therefore, he misused his official position in the matter of allotment of the property in the name .Of his wife. He further states that admittedly only a sum of Rs. 33,557 was deposited by the petitioner as sale price of the plot which even at that time was worth crores of rupees.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and reading the entire record carefully, I am of the view that the learned Senior Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore, did not decide the bail petition of the petitioner in its proper perspective, vide order dated A 12-7-1994, inasmuch as no speaking order was passed by him. After giving some facts of the case, the following operative order was passed by the learned Judge:--- "After going through the above facts, of the case, I do not find it a good case for bail. Rejected:"
Serious objections have been raised by both the learned counsel that -this could not be an order warranted by law because no reasons whatsoever had been given by the learned Judge. It is well settled that the Courts are required under law to give reasons in support of orders to be passed by them m the matters brought before them for decision. The learned Judge did not pass his order in line with the above touchstone. This being so, in pith and substance, the bail petition of the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending adjudication before the learned Senior Special Judge Anti-Corruption; Lahore. The parties shall be at liberty to argue the case by addressing their arguments in their own way. With the above observation, the order dated 12-7-1994 is hereby set aside by declaring it to be illegal on the face of it.