Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
2000 SCMR 157

SHAMRAIZ KHAN vs THE STATE

Citation2000 SCMR 157
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Petition No.26-Q of 1998
Date1999-09-16
Judge(s)Nasir Aslam Zahid, Kamal Mansur Alam, Munawar Ahmed Mirza
ResultBail allowed

ORDER

' NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.---This petition is filed by accused Shamraiz Khan (F.I.R. No.8/97 registered at the Anti-Corruption Establishment, Balochistan, Quetta, under sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 420, 109, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) Act II of 1947) seeking leave against the judgment of the Balochistan High Court dated 17-7-1998 dismissing his plea for bail.

' When this petition came up for orders in Chambers on 5-8-1998 before this Court, the petitioner was granted interim bail in the sum of rupees ten million with one surety to the satisfaction of the Registrar of the Balochistan High Court.

2. We have heard Mr. Azizullah Shaikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, along with Mr. Muhammad Riaz Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record, for the petitoner, and Malik Sikandar Khan, learned Advocate- General, Balochistan, for the State. It appears from the submissions made and from the record that, alongwith petitioner Shamraiz Khan, there are 18 co-accused all of whom are officials of the Food Department, Government of Balochistan. It is informed by the learned Advocate-General that one of the co-accused, namely, Abdul Salam, is absconding and all the other 17 co-accused have already been granted bail.

3. According to the prosecution, as contractor of Food Department, the petitioner, in conspiracy with the co-accused, who are all officials in the Food Department short delivered wheat in bags owned by the Government value whereof came to about Rs.15 crores. It is informed by the learned Advocate-General that a major portion of the said amount has already been deposited by the petitoner and, acording to his instructions, about 5,25,00,000 (Rupees five crore twenty-five lacs) are yet to be recovered.

' Mr. Azizullah Shaikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mr. M. Riaz Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record, appearing for the petitioner, informed that securities of the petitioner in the sum of about rupees five crores are lying with the Prudential Commercial Bank Limited, Quetta, and these securities can be encahsed and the amount taken by the Department.

' When this matter was taken up today in the morning, Manager of the concerned Bank was summoned. Mr. Muhammad Akhtar Arain, V.P./Chief Manager, Prudential Commercial Bank Ltd., Quetta, has appeared and informed that securities of the petitioner to the tune of about rupees 49 million are lying with the Bank. He was asked to submit a statement in writing that the amount represented by the securities would be deposited with the Registrar of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta. The Chief Manager of the Bank has placed on record a statement on behalf of his Bank which reads as under:-- "TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN ' It is certified that the Securities of Rs.49,400,391 of Mr. Shamraiz Khan Government contractor we the Bank are bound to pay the same amount of Rs.49,400,391 to the Registrar, High Court Balochistan, Quetta within the week."

4. In this case where the 17 co-accused, who are Government officials, have already been granted bail and more or less the entire amount has been deposited or is going to be deposited; according to the learned counsel it is a case where the interim bail is liable to be confirmed.

5. In the facts and circumstances of the case interim bail granted to the petitioner on 5-8-1998 is confirmed subject to deposit of Rs.49,400,391 (rupees C four crore ninety-four lacs three hundred and ninety-one) by the Prudential Commercial Bank Limited, Quetta, on behalf of the petitioner with Nazir of Baloshistan High Court within one week from today. The Provincial Government can withdraw this amount by making an application to the Honourable Chief Justice of the Balochistan High Court.

6. When this matter had come up earlier, we had directed a statement to be filed giving details of the accused in the criminal case, the amounts already recovered and the action, if any, taken by the Government against the defaulting officials of the Food Department under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. Such statement has been filed by the Advocate-General. On a query from the Court, it is informed by the Advocate-General, on instructions from Capt. (Retd.) Muhammad Younus Durrani, Director Food, Government of Baloshistan, that, out of 18 co-accused, 9 have been exonerated of the charges on the administrative side. It is further informed that according to the inquiry officer in the case on administrative side, these are minor irregularities on the part of the nine defaulting officials and the Competent Authority, i.e. Commissioner Kalat, surprisingly, accepting the recommendations of the inquiry officer, has exonerated the nine officials on the administrative side. We would not like to make any observation here, which may prejudice the criminal trial but we do record our strong disapproval of the manner in which the proceedings under Efficiency and Discipline Rules have been drawn and concluded at least against 9 officials/co-accused. It was informed by the Advocate-General that even after payment of Rs.49,400,391 pursuant to this Order, a sum of about three million rupees still remains due, but, according to instructions, such balance will be adjusted against future bills of the petitioner- accused. From this, it follows that petitioner Shamraiz Khan is still getting contracts from the Food Department, Government of Baloshistan. It is shocking state of affairs. Every rupee and every grain of wheat belonging to the Government is essentially the property of the people of Pakistan and the concerned Government Department and all concerned Government officials hold such money and assets as trustees from the people of Pakistan. A copy of this order may be sent to the Chief Secretary, Baloshistan.

7. This petition is converted into appeal and disposed of in the terms of this order.

Cited by 12 cases

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