' Respondents Nos.3 and 4 intending to contest the election of the seat of 'Nazim and Naib-Nazim in U.C. 47 in the district of Gujrat, filed nomination papers. It was objected by the petitioner that respondent No,3 owes money to the Municipal Committee, Gujrat and is a defaulter. His nomination papers were rejected by the learned respondent No,2 on 1-3-2001. The objections were rejected by the learned respondent No,2. An appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by learned respondent No,1 on 10-3-2001.
2. Learned counsel contends that it had been proved that respondent No,3 did owe a sum of Rs,2,46,000 to the Municipal Committee, Gujrat.
3. I have examined the copies of the record. An objection filed by the petitioner was to the effect that respondent No,3 is disqualified to contest the elections and that he will produce evidence at the time of scrutiny. According to the order passed by respondent No,2, respondent No,3 was not a defaulter, rather it was one Haji Tariq Mehmood Butt who was the Chairman of the Purchase Committee and against whom a notice was issued on 23-2-2001. Learned appellate authority also after examining the copies of the record has prima facie found that Haji Tariq Mehmood Butt was the one who had spent the amount and against whom a notice was issued by the Chief Officer of Municipal Committee, Gujrat.
4. To my mind, according to law the defaulter is a person who is adjudged to be a wilful defaulter.
This certainly involves some adjudication of a judicial nature and simply because some authority has demanded some money from a person it cannot be said that he had been adjudged to be wilful defaulter. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the impugned order in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.
Petition dismissed.
2000 YLR 1538 [Lahore] Before Khawaja Muhammad Sharif and M. Naeemullah Khan Sherwani, JJ MUHAMMAD JAMIL and others---Petitioners versus THE STATE---Respondent Criminal Miscellaneous No,7549/B of 2000, decided on 11-2-2001.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S . 365 ---Bail , grant of---Offences allegedly committed by the accused did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.---Court, without commenting upon the merit of the case, granted 'bail to the accused. [p. 1538] A Sardar Shaukat Ali for Petitioner.
Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Addl. A.-G. For the State.
' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---Learned Additional Advocate-General submits that section 365, P.P.C. Was introduced in the Statute Book on 2-12-1999. He further submits that according to P.C.O. No,IX of 14-10-1999 section 5(a)(i), there was no limitation to any Ordinance as provided by the Constitution even if it lapse. As far as this point is concerned, this objection of learned counsel for the petitioner is overruled.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute, if any, between the complainant and the present accused is of civil nature. It was Muhammad Latif, A.S.-I. Who snatched the truck and took it to Gujrat; that case of the petitioners does not fall within the prohibitory field of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. And that the petitioners are not required for further investigation.
3. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate-General submits that the case has been sent for trial, but is unable to state that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
4. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, as .The offences allegedly committed by the petitioners do not fall within the prohibitory field of section 497(1), A Cr.P.C., we accept this petition. The petitioners are directed .To be released from custody subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.