' A case under section 217/409/420/468/471, P.P.C. Read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was registered against the petitioners and others vide F.I.R. No,107 of 1998, dated 27-6-1998 at Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Faisalabad.
2. The petitioner had been serving as Assistant Education Officer (Male), Sillanwali, District Sargodha w,e,f, 4-5-1995 to 23-5-1998 and during that period, he used to draw salaries of 111 primary schools for its onward payment to the staff attached to these schools. In August, 1997, one Muhammad Haneef, Junior Clerk submitted a pay bill of the aforesaid schools to the District Accounts Officer, Sargodha on 30-8-1997 on the basis of which the petitioner allegedly drew the amount of that bill amounting to Rs,7,95,402.01 on 3-9-1997. He allegedly disbursed the aforesaid amount to the concerned staff on the same date and got their signatures on acquaintance roll. It transpired at subsequent stage that the abovementioned amount was also drawn through allegedly a bogus bill on 1-9-1997 which led to an enquiry at the order of the Commissioner, Sargodha Division which resulted into the registration of this case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an old person nearing the age of superannuation and has been falsely implicated in the case although he had nothing to do with the occurrence; that he had been exonerated in departmental enquiry held against him; that the alleged bogus bill was never signed by him and as such, he was not responsible for the alleged double payment of the amount in question; that the misappropriated amount was never entrusted to him, therefore, there could be no breach of trust nor it would attract the provisions contained in section 409, P.P.C. Which had allegedly been added with mala fide intention to aggravate the offence; that in fact the bank officials who had made the double payment were in league with the cheaters because the fraud could not be committed without their being privy to the misappropriation; that Qazi Abdul Waheed and Muhammad Hussain co-accused of the petitioner in the District Accounts Office have already been admitted to bail by the learned trial Court which would call for the application of rule of consistency for the release of the petitioner on bail; that the bank officials namely Muhammad Asghar and Abdul Rehman are also on interim bail from the Special Court Banking which would call for further enquiry as far as case against the petitioner is concerned. As such relying on Sikandar Abdul Karim v. The State through Inspector Faqir Muhammad 1994 M LD 1095 (Karachi), titled Saeed Ahmad v. The State 1996 SCM R 1132 (Supreme Court of Pakistan), titled Jaffar Muhammad v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 1827 (Lahore), it was contended that since there was ndtigating Agency and there being no fear of tampering with the same, the petitioner was entitled to bail.
4. Learned A.A.-G. Assisted by learned counsel for the State, however, opposed the bail on the ground that the role of the petitioner in the embezzlement was primary as he was the drawing and disbursing officer of the amount in question. He had submitted the genuine bill for its passing to the D.A.O., Sargodha on 30-8-1997 which was handed over to him after its passing on 1-9-1997. The aforesaid bill carried token No,3792 and scroll No, 688, dated 1-9-1997 which were only known to the petitioner and none else, as such, the bogus bill could not be prepared and passed without his active connivance which resulted into the double payment which was entrusted to him as a custodian being a drawing and disbursing officer. As such, the petitioner has no case for bail.
5. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R., he was the drawing and disbursing officer of the amount in question at the relevant time and as such, there is no doubt that he played a major role in the aforesaid misappropriation and fraud of the Government money of which he had become a lawful custodian. It may also be added that active participation and connivance of the petitioner with the bank officials in prima facie established in getting the bogus bill encased at an earlier date than the genii ine bill which was presented and paid at the later date resulting into the double payment of Government money from the bank. It can, therefore, be safely inferred that prima facie there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is involved in an offence punishable with imprisonment for life or for an imprisonment which may extend to 10 years and as such, he has no case for bail at this stage. The petition is accordingly dismissed.