' The petitioner has applied for post-arrest bail in a case registered against him vide F.I.R. No,194/94, dated 7-12-1994 under section 409/161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 at A.C.E., Multan Region.
2. The prosecution case is that on 7-12-1994 Muhammad Islam, complainant reported to the C.O., A.C.E., Multan Region, Multan that he was the Manager of Khair Enterprises and its owner was Zishan Elahi who used to bring industrial machinery from Lahore for his factory. Whenever the truck loaded with that machinery enters Multan City, the Octopi Staff posted at the octopi post charges octopi duty not according to the schedule but receive more money and issue receipt for less amount and the amount overcharged is embezzled by them and that on the next day the industrial machinery would be coming in the truck from Lahore and the same charges would be received by the staff of the octopi staff of the Octopi Post, Khanewal Road, Multan from them and the proceedings be taken against them. A$ he was not willing to pay the bribe; he had come to make the report.
Accordingly the raid was arranged on 8-12-1994 under the supervision of the Magistrate and the Truck No,7684/SL loaded with machinery belonging to the complainant came at the aforementioned octopi post, Muhammad Tufail accused-petitioner received Rs.3,000 consisting of six currency notes of the denomination of Rs.500 each, numbers of which had been noted down by the raiding Magistrate on having been produced by the complainant, who was travelling with the truck driver. The accused-petitioner issued receipt for Rs.870 and returned Rs.100 to the complainant and retained an =bunt of Rs.2,030 with him as Charagahi. The raiding Magistrate introduced himself to the accused-petitioner and recovered front him the tainted amount of Rs.2,030. The investigation was completed by the C.O. It was found that the machinery was weighed as 4,875 Kg. Which was more than that of the actual weight of the machinery and thus by misusing his official position the accused-petitioner had charged much more dues as octopi duty from the complainant as against one provided in the schedule. He had also deprived the Corporation of its rightful income and committed embezzlement and also deceived the complainant.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused- petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence; that the petitioner has not been named in the F.I.R. Even otherwise if the prosecution case be admitted, on the face of it, no offence under section -1-61 or under section 409, P.P.C. Is made out against the petitioner; that section 409, P.P.C. Entails punishment for 10 years. According to the facts and circumstances of the case section 409, P.P.C. Is not attracted. Hence the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., that the petitioner is quite innocent and has been victimized because of vengeance and grudge and requests for the grant of bail.
4. On the other hand, contentions raised are opposed by the learned State counsel.
5. I have heard the arguments and gone through the file. The Magistrate did not hear the conversation between the petitioner and the complainant. This needs further probing into the matter whether the amount of Rs.3,000 was handed over to the petitioner as advance money in respect of the machinery which was still to be brought or bribe or overcharging. The possibility of false involvement cannot be ruled out. It is also possible that the complainant might have asked for return of Rs.100 out of Rs.3,000 for his personal use. This makes the case doubtful and of further enquiry. This being the position the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000 (Rupees twenty-five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.
' The observations made in the above order shall not affect the merits of the case.