Case Details

Citation(s)
1978 SLG 247 1978 SLD 247 1978 SCMR 420
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 216 of 1978, decision dated: 20th July 1978.
ANWARUL HAQ, C.J., KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ
Rana Muhammad Sarwar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate on-Record for Petitioner. Asaf Jan, Assistant Advocate General Punjab with Sh. Ijaz Ali for the State

Rana MUHAMMMAD AMIN

VS

THE STATE

Law:

Section:

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) --- S. 497 Bail Case standing withdrawn from ordinary Courts of law for trial by Special Military Court Supreme Court, held, cannot grant bail to accused in such case Petition dismissed. [Martial Law]. ORDER ANWARUL HAQ, C. J. The petitioner, alongwith 10 other persona, is facing prosecution under sections 406, 420, 466, 467, 468, 470 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 120 B thereof and rule 49 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, on the allegations that they entered into a conspiracy to defraud the Government Treasury to the extent of 2 76 crores of rupees by setting up a fake Federal] Development Authority with offices at Bahawalpur, Rahimyar Khan and Multan and that in pursuance of the said conspiracy they, in fact, managed to draw the amount just mentioned from the National Bank of Pakistan. One Sana Ullah alias Aslam Shah was mentioned as the principal accused. A First Information Report was registered in this behalf at Bahawalpur Civil Lines Police Station on the 31st of March, 1977, and another First Information Report was also registered on the same day at Old Kotwali Police Station, Multan. It is said that on the 7th of April, 1977, a sum of Rs. 3.56 lacs was recovered from the possession of the petitioner when he was intercepted on the Sutlej Bridge near Bahawalpur city whsle proceeding in a car towards Karachi. The main ground on which bail has been refused by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, by his order dated the 29th of April, 1978, is that this was a unique case and the fraud committed was so perfect that for a long time it was never detected, and that it was a team work, with the result that there was prima facie evidence to show the involvement of the petitioner, from whom a substantial amount of the stolen money had been recovered. The learned Judge was not impressed by the contention that the petitioner's case was identical with that…
🔒
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