Case Details

Citation(s)
2013 SLG 2117 2013 SLD 2117 2013 PCRLJ 318
Sindh High Court
Bail Application No. 465 of 2012, decided on 24th July, 2012
SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI AND SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, JJ
Khaleeq Ahmed for Applicant. Muhammad Qasim, Standing Counsel for the State

MUHAMMAD BOOTA

VS

The STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 497(2)--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409/420/467/ 471/489-F/109/34---Criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery of valuable security, using as genuine a forged document, dishonestly issuing a cheque, abetment, common intention---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Alleged embezzlement of bank funds---Bank employees (co-accused) were alleged to have transferred the amount in question to the account of the accused from which it was further transferred to the account of a bank customer---Contentions of the accused were that he was not the beneficiary of the amount in question as it was specifically written in the complaint that bank employees debited bank funds into his account by making fake entries and subsequently transferred the amount to the account of a bank customer; that one of the bank employees was let off by the prosecution; that bank customer in whose account the amount had finally been transferred was also let off by the prosecution, and that the case depended on documentary evidence which could be proved at trial stage---Prosecution mainly contended that accused was directly involved in the case and had recorded his confessional statement before the Magistrate---Validity---Main allegation of forgery was against the bank employees and accused was not a beneficiary in any manner---One of the bank employees and bank customer, in whose account the amount in question was transferred, had been let of by the prosecution without any justification, which created doubts in the prosecution case---Accused had not admitted his guilt before the Magistrate but on the contrary disclosed how and under what circumstances he was cheated by the bank employees and co-accused---Case against accused depended upon documentary evidence, which was in the possession of the prosecution, therefore, there was no likelihood of tampering with the same---Case against accused fell within the ambit of further inquiry---Accused was granted bail, in circumstances. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Bail---Scope---Case against accused dependent upon…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492