Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal i Miscellaneous No. 2635/B of 1986, decided on 20th December, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 409‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused allegedly keeping public money (salaries of contingent staff) in private locker‑‑No departmental action against accused‑‑No shortage of public money detected during investigation‑‑No complaint from any staff member against accused of late or less payment of salary‑‑No allegation of utilizing public money for his own benefit‑‑Accused no longer required for purpose of investigation‑‑Case being of further inquiry as to guilt of accused, interim bail allowed to accused was confirmed in circumstances.
Ch. Muhammad Abdul Wahid for Petitioner.
Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Azeem for the Complainant.
Muhammad Nawaz for the State.
This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2635‑B of 1986 moved by Dr. Muhammad Ishaq Chaudhari, D.H.O., Faisalabad, Criminal Miscellaneous 2561-B of 1986 moved by Jalal Din, Head‑Cashier, D. H .O.'s Office and Criminal Miscellaneous 2570‑B of 1986 moved by Ghulam Ahmad Bhatti, Junior Cashier.
The prosecution case is that under the direction of Dr. Muhammad Ishaq, D. H.O. , Jalal Din and Ghulam Ahmad Bhatti (petitioners) had kept public money (Salaries of the contingent staff) in a private locker in the names of Jalal Din Head Cashier and Ghulam Ahmad Bhatti, Junior Cashier. The keeping of public money in a private locker at United Bank Limited, Faisalabad in the names of Jalal Din and Ghulam Ahmad Bhatti petitioners is not denied.
3. It is stated that it had been kept in the locker to save it from being looted. It is further stated that this was the salary of contingent staff belonging to Faisalabad, Jaranwala and Samundari and was to be paid to them on different dates. No complaint has been made by any member of the staff against the petitioners of either late payment or of less payment of salary to them, it is added. Furthermore, there is no allegation against the petitioners of having utilised the said amount for their private ends. It is also stated that the petitioners who were suspended from service have been re‑instated. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners no departmental action is being taken against the petitioners. All the three petitioners are public servants. No shortage of public money has been detected during investigation nor is there any complaint against the petitioners from any staff member of late payment of salary to them.
4. In these circumstances, it appears to be a case of further inquiry as to the guilt of the petitioners. They are no longer required for the purpose of investigation which is said to be complete. Accordingly, I confirm their interim bail.
S.A. /M‑4/L Bail confirmed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer