Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409, 468, 471, 420, 161, 465, 109 & 34---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5---Criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating and dishonestly inducing someone to deliver property, forgery for valuable security, use of a forged document as genuine, criminal breach of trust by public servant, public servant accepting any gratification other than legal remuneration, offence of forgery, abetment, common intention, criminal misconduct---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Rule of consistency---Allegations against the accused-petitioner were that he through forged document and with the connivance of Naib Tehsildar sold out land measuring 1410 kanals including common village lands and public grazing land fraudulently---Admittedly, the accused/petitioner was not a Government servant hence S.409, P.P.C, and S.5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 were not applicable to the extent of the petitioner in the present case---Co-accused, who were arrested by the police in the instant case, had already been granted post arrest bail by the Chief Court and another nominated accused, the then Naib Tehsildar was on interim bail, as such the present petitioner became entitled for concession of bail on the basis of rule of consistency---Moreover, there was unexplained delay of one year and two months in lodging of the FIR and the documentary evidence available on the prosecution file suggested the matter being of private transaction---Piece of land regarding which the transaction was alleged was not Government land as per revenue record, rather the same was recorded as Jagir of Raja's of the area in the revenue documents---Investigation in the matter to the extent of the present petitioner was completed and the petitioner was behind bars without any trial in the case---Nothing was available on case file to prove the entrustment of the petitioner for the offence of criminal breach of trust, hence, the application of S.409, P.P.C., in the instant matter required further inquiry to the extent of present petitioner---Other sections did not fall under the prohibitory clause of S.497,Cr.P.C.---Petitioner was local habitant of the area and the prosecution had not taken the plea of abscondance or tampering with the evidence by the accused, as such in absence of any allegation of abscondance or tempering with the prosecution evidence by the petitioner, bail was not to be withheld as punishment, because the accused/ petitioner would face the sentence, if ultimately convicted by the Trial Court at the time of conclusion of the trial---Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Bail---Tentative assessment---Scope---Findings made in bail order are tentative in nature and the Trial Court needs not be influenced by them in any way. Abdul Karim, Ammar Sadib and Tariq Shah for Petitioner. Faqeer Shah Special Prosecutor for Anti-Corruption Department GB for the State. Date of hearing: 13th February, 2025.

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 & 109---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417---Criminal breach of trust by public servant orby banker, merchant, agent, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery,forgery for the purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document, abetment, publicservant committed or attempt to commit criminal misconduct---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Prosecution case was that accused-respondent got transferred theland of accused of another case in the name of his sister while the said accused of anothercase was in judicial custody---Record showed that accused of another case was in judicialcustody from 8th September, 2008 to 30th September 2008, whereas the mutation showed hispresence before the revenue authorities on 22nd September 2008---Contents of mutationreflected that same was prepared on 22nd August 2008, however, attested and signed by theparties in presence of Naib Tehsildar on 14th October 2008---Said document showed thattransfer of property was made on 14th October, 2008 instead of 22nd September, 2008, whileduring the said dates, accused of another case was on bail---Attending circumstancessuggested that presence of that accused before the Revenue Autho-rities on 14th October,2008 could not be ruled out---Circumstances established that there was no evidence availableon record to connect the accused-respondent with the commission of offence---Appealagainst acquittal was dismissed in circumstances

Summary: Sec: 465 PPC-Scope of forgery- possession of forge document or Number plate and preparation of it, both are different---Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 465---Forgery---Vehicle with a non-genuine number plate had allegedly been recoveredfrom the possession of accused, which he claimed to be in his ownership---Record did notshow that the forged number plate had been prepared by the accused himself with theintention to support his title over the said vehicle---Complainant had admitted that he hadneither recovered the vehicle with the forged number plate, nor had seen the same---Otherrecovery witness who had prepared the recovery memos did not say as to from whom thevehicle having the forged number plate was recovered---No evidence was available on recordto establish the case against the accused---Both the judgments of courts below were arbitraryand suffered from gross illegality and miscarriage of justice and the same were set aside---Accused was acquitted accordingly.

Summary: (a) Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947)- S. 6 (c) -Sanction-Promoting authority to a certain grade-Whether appointing authority-Sind (Police) Rifle Force Act 1943, S. 4 (3)-Commandant's sanction enough-Evidence bearing on validity of sanction-Whether admissible at appeal stage. The facts constituting the offence were that the appellant, who was a member of the Sind Police Rifle Force, by making out a second pay bill received twice over the difference of pay between that of his ordinary grade and the grade to which he was promoted by reason of certain leave vacancies for a certain period He was charged under section 420 P. P. C., and section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947). His prosecution was sanctioned by the Commandant of the Force. The appellant took the plea of want of proper sanction before the Chief Court and sought to produce evidence to substantiate his plea at the appeal stage. Held, that the mere fact that the Inspector-General of Police promotes members of the Force to "C"grade does not avoid the operation of section 4 (3) of the Sind (Police) Rifles Force Act read with section 16 of the General Clauses Act by virtue of which Commandant of the Force was the appointing authority. There being no evidence to contradict the Commandant's claim that he was competent to remove the appellant, the sanction given by the Commandant was proper. Further that while the Court might have been inclined with hesitation to admit the documents sought to be produced by the appellant if the documents made it clear that the Commandant was not the competent authority to remove, admission of documents was refused inasmuch as there was nothing to contradict the Commandant's claim that he was a competent authority to remove. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 367-Judgment-Contents-Should set out ingredients of offence charged seriatim. No issue was raised in the judgment under appeal upon the point whether the accused was a public servant, the charge being that he had defrauded the Government of a certain sum while he was a member of the Sind Police Rifle Force. The Court framed a point for determination, viz., whether the accused committed fraud upon the Government by drawing Rs. 93-7-0 twice or did he so through genuine mistake. Held, this was no compliance with section 367 Cr. P. C. The prosecution has to prove the ingredients of the offences charged and it is for a judge to set these out seriatim. There may be errors of oversight due to this habit of framing the point-for determination. (c) Penal Code (XLh of 1860); S. 21, Ninth clause-Public servant-"Any officer in the service or pay of the Crown... for the performance of any public duty"-"Public duty"a necessary qualification of such officer. The words"in the service or pay of the Crown"must be read together with"for the performance of any public duty". Unless this conjunction in sense, if not in grammar or at least idiom, is imported, it is difficult to understand why the draftsman thought it necessary to make a special mention (clauses First and Second) of covenanted servants or of the Queen's Commissioned Officers. These first two descriptions of public servants are public servants by virtue of either their covenant or commission: other descriptions are public servants by virtue of the nature of their duties hence in the ninth description also"public duty"is a necessary qualification of the words"in the service or pay of the Crown". Where the accused (a member of the Sind Police Rifle Force) was described as a"sheet clerk" and there was nothing to indicate what a sheet clerk was, held, that the prosecution had failed to prove that he was a public servant. (d) Criminal trial-Conviction recorded under one of two offences charged-Mere omission to record conviction or acquittal under the other offence not necessarily to be deemed to amount to acquittal of that other offence-Appellate Court may convict and sentence accused under such offence. The accused was charged under sections 465, 420 P. P. C. and section 5 (1) (d) Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947). The Special Judge in his judgment recorded an express refusal to convict under section 465 P. P. C. He convicted the accused under section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act. There was no express order regarding section 420 P. P. C. The Special judge had however come to a finding that the accused had defrauded Government by obtaining Rs. 93-7-0 by submitting a pay-bill for that amount a second time, and convicted him only under section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. It turned out in appeal that the accused's conviction under section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2). Prevention of Corruption Act could not be maintained because the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused was a public servant. Held, that the Chief Court as an appellate Court was competent to determine whether the accused committed the offence of cheating. On evidence, the Chief Court maintaining the sentence convicted the accused in the alternative of an offence under section 420 or section 420 read with section 109 P. P. C. in lieu of the offence under section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act of which he was acquitted. Federal Court, Criminal Appeal, No. 6 of 1952 (unreported) distinguished, Tufail Ali, for the Crown.