IFTKHAR HUSSAIN CHAUDHARY, J.-- Criminal case F.I.R. No. 100, dated 11.12.1997 was registered at Police Station, FIA, C.B.C., Multan for offences under Sections 409/477-A/109, PPC read with Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, against Shahid Zubair and Haji Abdul Rashed on the written complaint made by Muhammad Ashraf Nasir Vice-President/Zonal Chief, Habib Bank Ltd., Multan.
Farhat Hussain, Assistant Vice-President carried out surprise physical checking of the Cantonment Branch of H.B.L., Multan on 3.12.1997 through Mr. Shabhir, Internal Auditor and noted a shortage of Rs.
1,40,(^000/- (Rupees one Crore forty lacs only) in the cash. According to F.I.R., Abdul Rashed, Officer In charge/Cash Department of the said Branch, disclosed that on 2.12.1997, the afore-said amount as paid by him under the instructions of Plantation of Mr. Shahid Zubair, Vice-President, Habib Bank . Ltd., Cantonment Branch, Multan to a third party.
2. After registration of the case Abdul Rashed was arrested on 12.12.1997. Shabiz Zubair was arrested on 17.12.1997. Judge Special Court (Offences in Banks), Lahore by order dated 16.2.1999 allowed bail to Haji Abdul Rashed while application submitted by Shahid Zubair was rejected.
3. Shahid Zubair submitted under consideration petition for grant of bail to him. The petition was posted for hearing on 18.5.1999 and after perusal of the record, it was noticed that Haji Abdul Rashed was allowed bail unjustifiably. Consequently, notice was issued to him to show cause as to why bail allowed to him by the Special Court (Offences in Banks), Lahore be not recalled.
4. The matters have been posted for hearing today.
5. learned counsel for Shahid Zubair strenuously argued that he was not connected with the commission of offence in any manner, that he had a flawless career as a banker and that he had already left the charge of the bank and could not have issued any instructions or passed any order in respect of the payment of cash to any person or party. It was argued that an advice/voucher was recovered from the Strong Room of the bank which bore signatures of Haji Abdul Rashed and according to that voucher the amount was to be handed over to Brinks, It was submitted that removal of money from the Strong Room was planned earlier and the plan was executed when the petitioner left the charge of the bank and that his incarceration was totally unjustified. It was also submitted that petitioner was behind the bars for a continuous period exceeding one year and on that ground the petitioner deserved the concession of bail, as well.
6. learned standing counsel on the other had submitted that the petitioner as well as Haji Abdul Rashed were duly connected with the commission of offence and both of them took advantage of the vacuum created by temporary absence of the Zonal Chief when charge was being relinquished and handed over and this amount was- removed from the bank by both the accused and they were connected with the commission of offence, It was also submitted that the accused were not entitled to grant bail on statutory ground as provisos to Section 497, Cr.P.C, were not applicable to matters concerning bail under Section 5(6) of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984. Reference in his regard was made to 1999 P.Cr.L.J. 1482.
7. Learned counsel for respondent-Haji Abdul Rashed submitted that he was found as not connected with the commission of offence during the investigation and bail was allowed to him on statutory ground justifiably by learned Special Court and bail granting order should not be interfered with.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have seen the record.
9. The white collar crime is on the rise, both nationally as well as internationally. Our criminal law, however, is not keeping pace with the gravity magnitude and incidence of crime of this general public money and public funds are being plundered and devoured without any Ghualm by public functionaries. The law is neither deterrent enough nor is effective enough in preventing or checking this crime. The Courts, therefore, have to stop in to rectify the situation. The crime of this nature has to curbed with heavy had and the accused who are adequately connected with commission of offence should not be permitted to take advantage of any technicality or loop-hole in the law or the case or the investigation, In this case a Government-owned Bank was deprived of a sum of Rs.
1,40,000,00/- (One crore forty lacs only) by its employees, Shahid Zubair-petitioner was Zonal Manager and Chief of the bank on the relevant date Haji Abdul Rashed was the Chief Cashier.
Shahid Zubair was appointed Zonal Manager/ARM (North) of the Bank and was to assume charge of the new post but in an office located in the same premises, It appears that heist was committed by the accused taking advantage of the situation which prevailed in the bank on account of change of guards i.e. Appointment of the new Zonal Chief. On account of the fluid situation prevailing in the Bank on that day certain important functionaries of the Bank succeeded in whisking away a huge sum of money. The offence could have been committed by ' those employees who had access to the Strong-Room and who had the authority to handle the money, In this case, the trial against the accused has practically commenced, therefore, we are reserving our observations and detailed comments qua the guilt of accused in the case. However, our tentative assessm ent of the record leads us to infer that Shahid Zubair and Haji Abdul Rashed were duly connected with the commission of offence and they do not deserve the concession of bail.
10. In Abdul Ghaffar Vs. The State (1999 P.Cr.L.J. 1482) it was held that proviso to Section 497, Cr.P.C, were not applicable to matters concerning bail in cases falling under Section 6(5) of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984. No contrary view was brought to our notice by the learned counsel appearing for the accused. Shahid Zubair cannot claim grant of bail on statutory grounds, either. Similarly, Haji Abdul Rashed accused was allowed bail erroneously by the Special Court, (Offences in Banks), Lahore.
11. As a consequence, application submitted by Shahid Zubair is dismissed. Bail allowed to Haji Abdu! Rashed is also cancelled as the bail granting order has been found to be unwarranted by law as well as facts of the case. He is directed to be taken into custody.
12. The Trial Court should endeavor to conclude the trial by an early date.