' This application under section 56I-A, Cr. P. C. Is directed against the proceedings, of a criminal case started on a direct complaint in the Court of S. D. M., Kotri for offences under sections 452 and 506, P. P. C., under the following circumstances.
1-A. Complainant/respondent Abdul Ghaffar was dealing in cigarettes. He was appointed cigarettes dealer for Pakistan Tobacco Company at Kotri. Under the agreement, the complainant let on lease his godown for one year in the name of the Pakistan Tobacco Company and they had to pay the monthly rent of Rs, 300. Some disputes arose between the complainant and the company, and the complainant was reluctant to continue the dealership. He however, wanted to continue his own business in the said godown which had remained in his actual physical possession. On the day of the incident, according to this complaint, petitioners Irshad Ahmed Kazi and Zahid Qureshi, Zonal Manager and Sale Supervisor of Pakistan Tobacco Company respectively alongwith Mukhtiar Ahmed, the third petitioner and some 20 students entered the godown in order to take forcible possession. The petitioners it is said at the point of revolver took over possession of the godown and forcibly drove out the complainant/ respondent with the help of the students. The premises were then locked up.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they were the sub-lessees of the godown while the complainant/respondent was only a licensee. That they could under the law revoke the licence and throw away the trespasser. It has on the other hand been argued by Mr. Samiuddin Sami that the sub-lease had been given by the complainant/respondent for only one year under the terms of the agreement and this had not been renewed. That the complainant/respondent continued to be the lessee and he was in actual physical possession of the godown. That the petitioners could not take the law into their own hands, but if they felt that they had the legal right in respect of these premises they could have moved a competent civil Court for ejectment of the complainant/respondent under due process of law. That the way, the possession was taken over in a dramatic manner by bringing in 20 students and by threatening the complainant by means of a revolve would show that the intentions of the petitioners were to obtain possession by force without seeking a remedy in the appropriate civil Court.
3. Both the parties have thus an arguable case and the case has to be decided on merits by the trial Court after going through the documents and recording evidence produced by the parties. It cannot be said that on the face of the complaint, no criminal offence is made out, nor can it be observed that the proceedings are in the nature of abuse of the process of Court.
4. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
1978 P Cr. I, J 663 [Lahore] Before Gulbaz Khan, .1 MUHAMMAD AKRAM BUTTER, ADVOCATE-Petitioner versus MUHAMMAD YUSAF AND ANOTHER-Respondents Criminal Miscellaneous No, 4530 of 1977, decided on 11th. January 1978.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- --- S. 497 (5)-Bail, cancellation of-Proposition that once bail allowed to an accused, bail order could not be recalled unless accused tampers with evidence-Held : Fallacious-Bail allowed on sole ground that accused was not being remanded to judicial custody as required under S. 344, Cr. P. C.
And case stood adjourned sine die-Accused, however, summoned from jail and a valid remand order passed-Illegality having been cured, no ground, held further, existing for extending concession of bail to accused-Bail cancelled, in circumstances. [p. 6631A Nasim Hasan for Petitioner.
Major Waheeduddin Virk for Respondent No,
1. Tahir Hussain for the State.
' This is a petition under section 497 (5), Cr. P. C., for the cancellation of bail of Muhammad Yousaf respondent, which has been filed by Muhammad Akram Butter.
2. The respondent was allowed bail by this Court on 4-10-1977, on the sole ground that he was not being remanded to judicial custody as required under section 344, Cr. P. C. And the case stood adjourned sine lie and for that reason, his detention was illegal.
3. Mohammad Akram Butter had filed Criminal Revision No, 669 of 1977, against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, dated 20-10-1977, whereby his prayer for summoning the accused and for framing charge against them and fixing the date of trial, was rejected. By his order dated 20-10-1977, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had adjourned the case sine die. The revision petition was accepted by this Court and the learned Additional Sessions judge was directed to summon the accused from jail and pass a remand order under section 344, Cr. P. C. For a specific date. Now the illegality, which had been earlier committed and on the basis of which the respondent was allowed bail by this Court, has been rectified, I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the case of the respondent was distinguishable from that of his co-accused Ijaz, whose bail had been cancelled by this Court after he had been allowed bail by the Sessions Judge. It was further urged by the learned counsel for the respondent that once the bail is allowed to an accused person, the bail order should not be recalled unless the accused tampers with the prosecution evidence. II cannot agree with this proposition. If an accused person is allowed bail on the sole ground of sickness, the bail order can be recalled if the accused recovers subsequently. If I accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, it would mean that once an accused person is allowed bail on the ground of sickness, he would remain on bail till the decision of case even if he recovers subsequently. I cannot reconcile with this proposition. In the present case, since the ground on which the respondent was allowed bail no longer exists and a valid remand order has been passed. I accept this petition and cancel the bail of the respondent.