Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1998 MLD 202

ABDUL JALIL KHAN vs STATE

Citation1998 MLD 202
CourtPeshawar High Court
Case No.Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No,133 of 1996
Date1996-07-03
Judge(s)Mian Muhammad Ajmal
ResultBail allowed

'Abdul Jalil accused-petitioner is facing prosecution in case F.I.R. No,5 dated 21-5-1996 of Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Bannu under section 409/420/468/471, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. He, after registration of the case against him, applied for pre-arrest bail and allowed ad interim bail, however the same was not confirmed vide order dated 4-6-1996. Thereafter, he applied for post arrest bail which was also refused by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Bannu. Hence the application in hand.

2. According to the F.I.R. the salaries drawn in the pay bills for the months of 2/1995 and 9/1995 amounting to Rs,3,915.06 in the name of Muhammad Irfanullah PTC Teacher, Government Primary School, Rahmzad Lapari were not disbursed and they were misappropriated by the petitioner, as an Accountant in the office of, the S.D.E.O. (Male), Bannu. When the same were claimed by Muhammad Irfanullah, P.T.C. Teacer, the petitioner instead of making payment to him arranged the drawal of double salaries in the different pay bills for the months of 10/1995 and 11/1995, in the name of Muhammad lrfanullah and sent to different pay centers for disbursement to dodge Muhammad lrfanullah for receiving his missing salaries and thus put to wrongful loss of the misappropriated amount to the Government exchequer.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their assistance.

4. The petitioner is charged under section 409/420/468/471, P. P.C. read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Before registration of the case the petitioner deposited Rs,1,957.53, in the treasury pertaining to the pay of Muhammad Irfantglah, P.T.C. Teacher for the month of October, 1995. The evidence consists of official record which has been taken into possession by the raiding party. Thus there is no possibility of its tampering by the petitioner. The offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and the petitioner being a Government servant is allowed bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of 11laqa/Duty Magistrate.

The above are the reasons for the short order of the even date.

Cited by 1 case

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch