ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Cr. Bail Application No.S-521 of 2012.
|
DATE OF HEARING |
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE |
08.02.2013.
1. For orders on M. A. No.82/2013.
2. For orders on M. A. No.83/2013.
3. For Hearing.
Mr. Abdul Hakeem Brohi, advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Riaz Hussain Khoso, State Counsel.
-------------------
This is a bail application filed pursuant to crime No.16/2006, registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Shikarpur, under Section 409, 34, P.P.C, read with 5(2) Act-II of 1947.
2/- Brief facts as stated in the F.I.R are that the complainant Gulzar Ahmed Abro, Circle Officer, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Shikarpur lodged an F.I.R on instructions of District Food Controller, Shikarpur, on behalf of the State, being crime No.16/2006 at P.S A.C.E., Shikarpur, stating therein that the applicant/accused was posted as Food Supervisor/Incharge, Food Procurement Centre, Chak during the year 2003-04 and he was authorized for payment of cost to the extent of 2000 bags of wheat. On 04.5.2004 Additional Food Controller, Shikarpur visited the procurement centre and reported that the applicant had deserted from duty and had taken away payment of 2200 wheat bags, while obtained cash Rs.1950590/- from National Bank of Pakistan, Shikarpur branch in the name of other parties. Out of 2200 bags only 500 bags were found from Shikarpur godown as well as from the places of some private persons, hence the balance of 1700 wheat bags of government wheat, which cost to Rs.1512090/- were misappropriated by the applicant in connivance with private persons and prayed to proceed with the applicant/accused alongwith private persons.
3/- It has come on record that after registration of the F.I.R the investigation was initiated and the case was challaned showing the applicant as absconder. As a result of non-execution of non-bailable warrants the proclamation under Section 87/88, Cr.P.C was issued against him by the trial Court and on 16.3.2010 the case was proceeded against him under Section 512, Cr.P.C and the same was kept on dormant file.
4/- On these facts, as narrated by the prosecution, the applicant argued that he has not committed any misappropriation/corruption, but when he was incharge of the above procurement centre, in order to achieve the target of wheat, on the verbal permission of higher authorities he paid some advance payments to the farmers/landlords, but those persons after getting advance amount from the applicant/accused become defaulters and he could not procure the wheat, therefore, some amount was rest towards them. He contended that the concerned officials have made the applicant responsible for the rest of the amount and is being recovered in instalments under threat to be sent to jail in case of non-payment. He submits that he could not recover the amount from the private farmers, which includes Mahar and Jatoi tribes, as there was dispute among them and as such he left the place as he was unable to recover the rest of the amount from the defaulters and subsequently on account of the heavy flood and rain the recovery was affected. Learned Counsel submits that it is a case of further enquiry and the applicant has no fault of his own, but he acted on the instructions of the higher officials.
5/- On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that he is not required to act on the verbal instructions of higher officials. In fact, as a wheat procurement officer/food supervisor he has to act in accordance with law and spend amount for the procurement of wheat target. Learned Counsel submits that he remained absconder and as such he is not entitled for this discretionary relief. Learned Counsel submits that the case was registered on 15.11.2006 and the accused did not join the proceedings and the delay in lodging the F.I.R has been satisfactorily explained as the moment the offence was unearthed, appropriate proceedings in the shape of F.I.R were registered.
6/- I have heard the learned Counsel and perused the record.
7/- It appears that the learned Counsel for the applicant has not been able to explain satisfactorily as to how and under whose instructions the applicant invested the amount for the procurement of wheat. Certainly, these functionaries do not act on verbal directions. As a wheat procuring officer he has to be prudent and the investment has to be in black and white. It has not been explained satisfactorily as to under which higher official's instructions such investment was made by the applicant. The above facts got strength when the applicant despite admitting the above facts remained absconder and did not join the investigation and proceedings and consequently challan was submitted on 31.10.2007 showing him absconder. Repeatedly non-bailable warrants were issued against the applicant but he did not appear before the trial Court and chose to remain fugitive from law and ultimately he was declared as proclaimed offender vide order dated 14.5.2008. Learned Counsel does not dispute the fact that the applicant was entrusted with this amount to procure the wheat as required and only in defence submitted that the private parties have not acted as far as the delivery of wheat is concerned. He also did not disclose as to how, where and in what manner such amount was paid.
8/- In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Counsel for the applicant has hardly made out a case for any indulgence. The trial Court dealt with the issues substantially and there is neither any ambiguity in the order of the trial Court, nor any point raised by the learned Counsel required any indulgence. Consequently, this bail application was dismissed by short order dated 08.02.2013 and above are the reasons in support thereof.
JUDGE