Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 498 & 403---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 406 & 408---Criminal breach of trust, criminal breach of trust by a clerk or servant---Ad-interim pre-arrest bail, withdrawal of---Allegations against the accused-petitioner were that he being employee of complainant embezzled an amount of 26,300 Omani Riyal of which were given to him for the purchase of gold---Complainant reported the incident immediately to Pakistan Embassy at Oman and the matter was onward referred to FIA for legal action---Petitioner claimed that a crime report was already registered by the complainant at Masqat/Oman, there was no scope for lodging of second FIR with respect to the same occurrence in Pakistan---In the case in hand only a crime report was registered against the petitioner at Masqat/Oman---Petitioner was neither tried nor convicted or acquitted of the charge there---Petitioner escaped from Oman/Musqat and entered into the limits of Pakistan and was arrested by the F.I.A. authorities---Since case against the petitioner was just at initial stage of investigation at Oman, hence he could not seek the help of S.403, Cr.P.C.---Inquiry/investigation, arrest and trial of petitioner in Pakistan was legal and valid for all the purposes, therefore, objection raised by petitioner was devoid of any force, hence rejected outrightly---Record spoke that when petitioner committed embezzlement in Masqat/ Oman, he immediately transferred certain amounts into his bank account at Pakistan and bank account of his wife---Petitioner, being an employee of complainant, was entrusted with cash, diamond ring and bank card, which he misappropriated and converted the same to his own use in flagrant violation of his duties as an employee---Petitioner breached the trust of his employer/ complainant---Ingredients of offence of criminal breach of trust prescribed in S.405 of P.P.C were fully attracted---Whole of the documentary evidence floating on the surface during the investigation fully connected him with the crime alleged against him---Petitioner failed to dislodge his prima facie involvement in the offence---All the circumstances were encircling petitioner from all the sides---First Information Report presented a dreadful picture---Petitioner failed to show any mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of complainant for his false implication---Extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail, being available only for innocent people, could not be extended in favour of the petitioner---Another aspect of the matter had escaped the notice of Investigating Officer, as such it was appropriate to adhere to the same---Amount was transferred by petitioner from Masqat/Oman to Pakistan into his own bank account as well as the bank account of his wife with the knowledge that it was proceeds of crime, as such the relevant offences under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, were also prima facie made out against the petitioner---Investigating Officer of the case was supposed to look into the said aspect of the case---Thus, the present petition had no force---Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to the petitioner was withdrawn---Petition was dismissed, in circumstances. 2022 PCr.LJ 1511 and 2011 YLR 2882 rel. Zaqa Ullah Sohi and Sajjad Mehmood Bhatti with petitioner. Mian Muhammad Naseem for the Complainant. Tayyab Ahsan Siddiqui, Assistant Attorney General. Badar, SI/FIA, with record.

Summary: Bail denied ---- (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----Ss. 496, 497, 498 & 154---Pre-arrest bail---Foreign offence---Registration of FIR in Pakistan---Double jeopardy---Scope---Petitioner, accused of embezzling funds while employed in Oman, sought pre-arrest bail in Pakistan---FIR alleged that petitioner received cash, a diamond ring, and a bank card from complainant in Muscat, Oman, and instead of fulfilling assigned duties, transferred Omani Riyals into his and his wife’s bank accounts in Pakistan, then absconded---Petitioner argued that registration of FIR in Pakistan amounted to double jeopardy, since complaint had already been lodged in Oman---Held, registration of FIR in Pakistan not barred under S. 188, Cr.P.C., where a Pakistani citizen commits offence abroad---Criminal courts in Pakistan can try such persons if found within the country---Section 403 Cr.P.C. protection (against double jeopardy) only applies where accused has been tried and convicted or acquitted by competent court---No such trial or acquittal/conviction occurred in Oman, thus protection of S. 403 not attracted---Petitioner's objection regarding double jeopardy rejected.(b) Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----Ss. 406, 408 & 405---Criminal breach of trust by servant---Misappropriation---Transfer of embezzled funds---Scope---Petitioner, employed as a driver in complainant’s company in Oman, was entrusted with significant cash, jewelry, and bank card---Instead of performing his duty, petitioner misappropriated the entrusted assets and transferred equivalent amount into his and his wife's bank accounts in Pakistan---Held, entrustment and subsequent dishonest misappropriation satisfied ingredients of criminal breach of trust under Ss. 405 & 408, PPC---Petitioner failed to dislodge prima facie evidence of his involvement or establish mala fide on part of complainant---Grant of pre-arrest bail held not justified.(c) Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010----S. 3---Proceeds of crime---Offence committed abroad---Transfer of criminal proceeds into Pakistani accounts---Scope---Held, petitioner’s act of transferring embezzled funds from Oman into his and his wife's bank accounts in Pakistan, knowing it was illicit wealth, attracted provisions of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010---Investigating Officer directed to examine applicability of AMLA provisions for further legal action.(d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----Ss. 498 & 497---Pre-arrest bail---Extraordinary relief---Scope---Held, bail before arrest is an extraordinary concession granted only in cases of mala fide or false implication---Where strong prima facie evidence connects accused with offence, and no enmity or ulterior motive is established, bail cannot be granted---Petitioner’s plea of victimization held baseless---Ad-interim bail withdrawn.Disposition: Petition dismissed; ad-interim pre-arrest bail withdrawn.Cited Cases:• Dr. Imran murder case, Islamabad High Court (2022 PCr.LJ 1511)• 2011 YLR 2882• Section 403 Cr.P.C. interpreted in light of foreign prosecution protectionsCited Legislation:• Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 405, 406, 408• Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 3, 154, 188, 403, 496–498• Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, S. 3

Summary: (a) Companies Act (XIX of 2017)--- ----Ss.476, 477 & 497---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 154 & 561-A---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 419, 420, 468, 471, 408 & 409---Quashing of FIR---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Petitioners/accused sought quashing of FIR by invoking constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Held: Allegations against the petitioners were that they being coordinator and servant of a registered company while being hand in glove with each other prepared fake and fictitious rent deed and wrongfully obtained possession of the company's outlets along with wrongful dispossession of the servants of the company, thus cheated the company---When the company was a registered one and completely came within the four corners of Companies Act, 2017 ('the Act') the best course for the company was to move a complaint as required under S. 477 of the Act and not to move an application before the SHO for registration of a criminal case against the petitioners---When the law provides a mechanism for doing a thing in a particular manner, then it must be done in that way and not otherwise---Section 476 of Companies Act, 2017, provides cognizance to be taken in the case of registered companies while S. 477 provided the way of making a complaint for such offences whereas S. 497 provides the penalty /punishment for the offences committed---Section 476 of the Companies Act, being non obstante clause which excludes other provisions of the general law and full mechanism has been provided while taking the cognizance as provided under S. 497 of the Act, which is also a scheduled offence, provided in Eighth Schedule of the Act---Thus, the contents of FIR fully constituted an offence under S. 497 of the Companies Act, hence, lodging of the FIR by the local police was without any competence and was patently illegal on the face of record---Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly. Syed Mushahid Shah and others v. Federal Investigating Agency and others 2017 SCMR 1218; 2013 SCMR 85 and FIA through Director General FIA and others v. Syed Hamid Ali Shah and others PLD 2023 SC 265 rel. (b) Interpretation of statutes--- ----General and special law---Applicability---Wherever there is a special and general law applicable to a certain matter, the special law will prevail. Muhammad Iqbal others v. Nasrullah 2023 SCMR 273 and Safi-ud-Din Kazi v. Pranab Chandra Roy Choudhary PLD 1950 Dacca 37 rel. Waheed Jan Muhammad for Petitioner. Shoaib Ali, Assistant Advocate General for the State. Malik Asif Ali for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 12th February, 2025.

Summary: Bail granted ---- The petitioner, sought post-arrest bail in connection with an FIR filed against him, accusing him of forgery, criminal breach of trust, and fraudulent transactions during his tenure as CEO of a joint venture management committee (JVMC). He was alleged to have issued 37 cheques totaling Rs. 1,468,100,000 to a third party without proper authorization, executed fraudulent agreements, and filed a civil suit with a forged power of attorney. ----- Issues: ----- 1) Whether the alleged offenses under Sections 420, 468, 471, 408, and 381 PPC justify the continued detention of the petitioner. ----- 2) Whether the conditions for granting bail are met, particularly in cases involving forgery and breach of trust. ----- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Forgery Allegations: The court noted that the allegations of forgery had not yet been confirmed through a handwriting expert’s analysis, and the agreements did not contain any forged signatures. Further, the petitioner only countersigned the agreement in question, with another party primarily responsible for the transaction. Hence, the court found no concrete evidence of forgery at this stage. ----- Criminal Breach of Trust: The court observed that the funds in question came from the account of Bahria Town Pvt. Ltd., not from the Defense Housing Authority (DHA). As a result, the petitioner had no dominion over DHA funds, a key requirement for a charge under Section 408 PPC. ----- Applicability of Bail: The court emphasized that offenses under Sections 420 and 471 PPC are bailable and that non-bailable offenses under Sections 408 and 468 PPC do not attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., as they carry a maximum sentence of seven years. Citing the precedent of Tariq Bashir v. The State, the court highlighted that bail is the norm in cases where the prohibitory clause does not apply. ----- No Exceptional Grounds for Denial of Bail: The court found no exceptional circumstances, such as risk of absconding, repeating the offense, or tampering with evidence, that would justify refusing bail. The petitioner had no criminal antecedents, and the evidence was primarily documentary, reducing the likelihood of interference with the investigation. ----- Conclusion: The court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner, subject to furnishing bail bonds worth Rs. 50,000,000, along with two sureties of the same amount. ----- Citations/Precedents: Tariq Bashir and 05 others v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34) Subhan Khan v. The State (2002 SCMR 1797) Muhammad Tanveer v. The State and another (PLD 2017 SC 733) Saeed Ahmad v. The State (1996 SCMR 1132)

Summary: In the case of Zahid Maqsood Butt vs. The State, etc., the petitioner, Zahid Maqsood Butt, challenged the order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, which accepted a criminal revision filed by the respondent, Usman Khalid. The revision was against the order dated 17.06.2023 passed by the learned Magistrate Section-30, Lahore, and it ordered the proceedings in the criminal trial (Case FIR No.38 of 2015) to be stopped under Section 249 of Cr.P.C. The FIR was registered against Usman Khalid under Section 408 PPC for misappropriating Rs. 5 crores while serving as a manager/employee. ---Issues: 1) Whether the criminal proceedings should be stayed pending the resolution of the civil suit concerning the status of the respondent (employee or partner). 2)Whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge correctly applied legal principles in stopping the criminal trial under Section 249 of Cr.P.C. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ----Criminal vs. Civil Proceedings: The court noted that criminal and civil proceedings can proceed simultaneously, provided the subject matter is the same. In this case, the criminal trial concerns misappropriation, while the civil suit deals with entitlement to an amount. The decision of a criminal court does not prejudice the civil suit because the standards of proof differ. ----Applicability of Section 249 Cr.P.C.: The court found that Section 249 of Cr.P.C. allows a Magistrate to stop proceedings at any stage without pronouncing a judgment of acquittal or conviction. However, it is meant for situations where evidence is insufficient to convict, but further development is expected. In this case, complete prosecution evidence was recorded, and the case was fixed for final arguments. Thus, the learned Additional Sessions Judge misapplied the law. ----Guidelines for Stay of Proceedings: The court outlined that a stay of proceedings is typically conditional upon an order from another court or the government. It provided instances where criminal proceedings might be stayed but emphasized that Section 249 Cr.P.C. is not a remedy for staying proceedings due to pending civil matters. Outcome: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was set aside. The trial court was directed to proceed with the criminal case forthwith. ----Citations/Precedents: MUHAMMAD AKBAR vs. THE STATE AND Maulvi MUHAMMAD YASIN KHAN (PLD 1968 Supreme Court 281) TARIQ IRSHAD vs. SPECIAL JUDGE and others (2022 P Cr. L J 1050) Rasoolan Bibi vs. The State etc. (Writ Petition No. 82843 of 2023) THE STATE through Prosecutor General Sindh vs. SHAHZAD RIAZ and others (2021 P Cr. L J 656) GULAN vs. The STATE and 2 others (2015 YLR 190) S. MASOODUL HASSAN NAQVI vs. THE STATE (1986 P Cr. L J 1272) MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs. THE STATE AND ANOTHER (1979 SCMR 437) ABDUL HALEEM vs. THE STATE AND OTHERS (1982 SCMR 988) RIAZ-UL-HAQ vs. MUHAMMAD ASHIQ JORAH, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PIND DADAN KHAN and 2 others (2000 SCMR 991) A. HABIB AHMED vs. M.K.G. SCOTT CHRISTIAN and 5 others (PLD 1992 Supreme Court 353) SHERAZ AHMAD and others vs. FAYYAZ-UD-DIN and others (2005 SCMR 1599) ABDUL AHAD vs. AMJAD ALI and others (PLD 2006 Supreme Court 771) AKHLAQ HUSSAIN KAYANI vs. ZAFAR IQBAL KIYANI and others (2010 SCMR 1835) MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KHARIAN DISTRICT GUJRAT and 8 others (PLD 2011 Lahore 551) Mst. SHIREEN TAJA vs. THE STATE and 2 others (2002 P Cr. L J 159)