ORDER IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN CHAUDHRY, J.- The petitioner is a complainant in case FIR No.5 dated 5.7.1994 A.C.E. Chakwal registered against respondent Muhammad Gul for offences u/s 420, 468/471 PPC read with section 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had submitted a forged matriculation certificate to the Municipal Committee, Chakwal and got himself confirmed as Octroi Inspector in the said Municipal Committee.
2. The respondent was arrested and later was granted bail by Sh. Abdul Razzaq, Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Rawalpindi on 4.9.1994.
3. The complainant presented this application for cancellation of bail allowed to respondent Muhammad Gul by the Special Judge, which was admitted to regular hearing on 3.10.1994 and notice was issued to the respondent. The matter was placed before me under the direction of Hon'ble Senior Judge when my learned brother, Raja Abdul Aziz Bhatti, J. Who had earlier heard the matter desired that the application be placed before any other Bench, Thereafter learned counsel for the parties were heard and record seen with their assistance.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Special Judge allowed bail to the respondent on two grounds: firstly that the Investigating Agency had not collected any evidence to the effect that the alleged forged matriculation certificate was presented/produced by the respondent and secondly, that he was admitted in the Hospital on account of illness, and these reasons were not based on any material or were not acceptable in law for enlarging an accused on bail. It was submitted that the petitioner had himself submitted the matriculation certificate to the Municipal Committee and evidence to this effect was available on file but the lower court did not bother to see the same and gave a finding which was an outrage to the material on record. It was further submitted that mere admission in a Hospital would not entitle any accused to be enlarged on bail and the order appeared to have been passed not on any legally tenable grounds but on extraneous considerations, and it was submitted, a strong notice of the matter should be taken. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the certificate was neither forged by the respondent nor was submitted by him and at any rate he drew no benefit from the certificate. It was submitted that challan had been submitted in the court and charge was likely to be framed on 30, April, 1995 and that since trial was to commence soon bail might not be cancelled. Learned Assistant Advocate-General has not supported the impugned order.
5. Strict adherence to law and procedural norms is incumbent upon those whose job it is to administer justice. It keeps the judicial system alive and faith of the people enkindled in it. Like all normative systems, the strength of criminal justice, system lies not in its harshness to come down on the people, but by the degree of their respect it enjoys for that is the ultimate measure of success of such a system. Parallel criminal justice systems introduced in the country from time, to time, which administered virtually the same law, died prematurely due to societal non- acceptance. The judicial officer thus cannot afford to be nonconformist. It was in this contest that the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this court being af the apex of criminal justice hierarchy should take note of delinquency committed by the lower court since it is duty of this Court to see that the law is administered correctly by the lower functionaries.
6. Now, in this case there is enough material on record to show that the certificate was forged, it was submitted by the respondent and the evidence was available on file showing him to be an intrepid delinquent. Then a person has to be shown to be infirm or quite unwell to earn enlargement on bail and mere joining a Hospital was hardly a ground to allow bail to an accused.
Therefore, the ing order militated against the law, the record and good conscience. The conduct of the Special Judge in this regard is strongly disapproved.
7. The ing order did call for interference but due to the fact the trial is going to commence in near future, the same is not being not recalled, though this is being done with considerable reluctance.
However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial by 30th June, 1995.