Case Law, Bail Anti Corrution
Citation Name : 2002 YLR 2764 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : UMAR DIN LODHI
Side Opponent : THE STATE
----S.498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409/420/467/468/471-A/34 --- Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Pre-arrest bail ---Offences pertained to the years 1992 to 1996 and the accused was posted as ADM in the year 1995, hence the whole of the period shown in the F.I.R. could not be put to his account---Act of the accused relating to his period of posting was found in the two departmental inquiries conducted against him to be an irregularity in drawing the Government funds in excess to the sanctioned amount and not an embezzlement of the same---Investigation was complete and the challan had been submitted in the Court--Accused who was a retired Government servant was no more required for any further investigation---Involvement of huge amount in the case could not be made a ground for refusing the bail ---Two co-accused had already been granted bail ---Accused had pleaded mala fides on the part of the anti corruption Police at the behest of the complainant due to his personal ill-will--Record and all documents being in the possession of the prosecution, there was no chance of tampering with the evidence--Accused had not misused the concession of interim pre-arrest bail granted to him more than one and a half years back and the same was confirmed in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2002 MLD 1659 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : WASI HAIDER
Side Opponent : THE STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----S. 497(2)'---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.409, 420, 468, 471, 477-A, 109 & 34---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)--bail , grant of---Further inquiry---Amount involved in case though was substanti al but that fact by itself would be no ground for refusing bail to accused especially when that huge amount was encashed during tenure of other officer---Case of accused was identical with case of co-accused who had been released on bail ---Rule of consistency demand that bail concession was also granted to accused as bail could not be withheld as a punishment to accused---Investigation had already been completed and accused were no, more required for investigation and it was a rule in matter of grant of bail in such cases to grant the bail and to refuse was an exception---Case being fit for further inquiry, accused were admitted to bail .
Citation Name : 2002 MLD 746 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : BASHIR AHMED
Side Opponent : THE STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----Ss. 561-A & 497---Sindh Inquiry an anti -corruption Act (IV of 1991), Preamble, Ss.3, 9) & 11---conversion of application under S.497, Cr.P.C. into the one under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. Quashing , of F.I.R.---F.I.R. containing allegations of corruption and misconduct was directly lodged with the police station by a police officer against the accused who was a civil servant despite an anti -corruption police station was available in the locality---In terms of S.3 of Sindh Enquiry and anti -corruption Act, 1991 only the anti -corruption Department had jurisdiction to enquire into allegation of corruption against a civil servant---Preamble of the Act had also provided for the constitution of a special agency for investigation of offences relating to corruption by or inquiry into misconduct of public servant---F.I.R. lodged by Police Authorities against the accused who was a public servant, suffered from a basic legal defect and it was totally without jurisdiction while competent anti -corruption Police Station was available in the locality---Court converted application of bail into an application under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. and quashed the F.I.R. with direction to Police Authorities to adopt the proper procedure as provided under Sindh Inquiry and anti -corruption Act, 1991.
Citation Name : 2002 YLR 2764 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : UMAR DIN LODHI
Side Opponent : THE STATE
----S.498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409/420/467/468/471-A/34 --- Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Pre-arrest bail ---Offences pertained to the years 1992 to 1996 and the accused was posted as ADM in the year 1995, hence the whole of the period shown in the F.I.R. could not be put to his account---Act of the accused relating to his period of posting was found in the two departmental inquiries conducted against him to be an irregularity in drawing the Government funds in excess to the sanctioned amount and not an embezzlement of the same---Investigation was complete and the challan had been submitted in the Court--Accused who was a retired Government servant was no more required for any further investigation---Involvement of huge amount in the case could not be made a ground for refusing the bail ---Two co-accused had already been granted bail ---Accused had pleaded mala fides on the part of the anti corruption Police at the behest of the complainant due to his personal ill-will--Record and all documents being in the possession of the prosecution, there was no chance of tampering with the evidence--Accused had not misused the concession of interim pre-arrest bail granted to him more than one and a half years back and the same was confirmed in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2002 MLD 1659 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : WASI HAIDER
Side Opponent : THE STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----S. 497(2)'---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.409, 420, 468, 471, 477-A, 109 & 34---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)--bail , grant of---Further inquiry---Amount involved in case though was substanti al but that fact by itself would be no ground for refusing bail to accused especially when that huge amount was encashed during tenure of other officer---Case of accused was identical with case of co-accused who had been released on bail ---Rule of consistency demand that bail concession was also granted to accused as bail could not be withheld as a punishment to accused---Investigation had already been completed and accused were no, more required for investigation and it was a rule in matter of grant of bail in such cases to grant the bail and to refuse was an exception---Case being fit for further inquiry, accused were admitted to bail .
Citation Name : 2002 MLD 746 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : BASHIR AHMED
Side Opponent : THE STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----Ss. 561-A & 497---Sindh Inquiry an anti -corruption Act (IV of 1991), Preamble, Ss.3, 9) & 11---conversion of application under S.497, Cr.P.C. into the one under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. Quashing , of F.I.R.---F.I.R. containing allegations of corruption and misconduct was directly lodged with the police station by a police officer against the accused who was a civil servant despite an anti -corruption police station was available in the locality---In terms of S.3 of Sindh Enquiry and anti -corruption Act, 1991 only the anti -corruption Department had jurisdiction to enquire into allegation of corruption against a civil servant---Preamble of the Act had also provided for the constitution of a special agency for investigation of offences relating to corruption by or inquiry into misconduct of public servant---F.I.R. lodged by Police Authorities against the accused who was a public servant, suffered from a basic legal defect and it was totally without jurisdiction while competent anti -corruption Police Station was available in the locality---Court converted application of bail into an application under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. and quashed the F.I.R. with direction to Police Authorities to adopt the proper procedure as provided under Sindh Inquiry and anti -corruption Act, 1991.
No comments:
Post a Comment