ORDERCH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.- The petitioner is involved in a case vide F.I.R. No. 34/92, dated 16-4-1992 lodged by one Haji Muhammad Sharif at Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment. Multan Region. Multan under Sections 467/468, 218/161/420 P.P.C, read with Section 5(2)47 Prevention Of Corruption Act.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the contents of the F.I.R, revealed that F.I.R, was lodged against Muhammad Arif Butt, Tahir Bin Saeed Divisional Engineer. Ashiq Hussain Shah.
Sub- Engineer, District, Council, Rajanpur. The Investigating Agency found them innocent and_sent the case to the competent authority for initiation of proceedings against them under Efficiency & Discipline Rules on the ground that they are responsible for negligence, the authority ultimately came to the conclusion that Arif is the witness and he-passed the bill without verifying. The Investigating Agency only got sanctioned to proceed against petitioner on 7-10-1996 and challan was submitted on 12-7-1997 against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that Log Book was remained with the XEN D.G. Khan from lst March, 1988 to23-4-1990 and the Log Book was remained with the petitioner till 2-8-1987 and the forgery took place in 1989, therefore he argued that the case of the petitioner becomes one for further inquiry.
3. The learned A.A.G, appearing on Court call argued the case and opposed the bail petition by tooth and nail. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case learned A.A.G, stated ttiat challan has been submitted and the Log Book remained with the petitioner and the petitioneris the only responsible to change the Log Book as the Log Book was with him. And the offence falls under the prohibitory clause.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is strange enough to note that the real culprits were declared innocent by the Investigating Agency for reasons best known to them and made them witnesses in this case. It is against the common sense and logic that the Driver is the only responsible to keep the Log Book in custody. It is the responsibility of the competent authority while passing the bill to find out whether there is .Any forgery in the Log Book or not? This fact reveals that the responsible officer is not discharging his duties in accordance with Article 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. 1973 and in fact he Is responsible to act in violation.Of Article 4 of the Constitution. It is the duty and obligation of each and every citizen ofPakistan to act in accordance with law by virtue of Articles 4. 5(2) of the Constitution read with Article 2-A and preamble of the Constitution. It is further brought on the record that F.I.R., was recorded in 1992 but the Investigating Agency for the reasons best known to them did not finalise the inquiry; till 1994 and final report was prepared on 16-4-1994 against the petitioner leaving the high-ups and final challan was submitted even then the Investigating Agency kept silent to submit challan against the petitioner till 12-7-1997.
5. Keeping in view all these facts in-juxta position then it is crystal clear that the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry and ingredients of sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C, is attracted. These observations are tentative in nature, the trial Court shall decided the case without influence of the above observations.
6. In view of above circumstances, the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50.000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.