Belated FIR and recovery--Plea of false implication

1988 S C M R 479
Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Javid Iqbal, JJ
MUHAMMAD ANWAR--Petitioner
versus
THE STATE--Respondent
Petition for Leave to Appeal No.277 of 1987, decided on 16th November, 1987.
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dated 26th July, 1987 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.972-B of 1987/BWP).
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--
---S.497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.161/162--Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)--Bail--Grant of--Belated FIR and recovery--Plea of false implication-- Petitioner accused of receiving Rs.14,000 as illegal gratification--First information report lodged six months after alleged occurrence and money recovered seven months after arrest of petitioner, from an almirah in Government Office where he worked--Petitioner denied bail--Pleas of false implication and entire case against accused as well as recovery being false, not entertained-­Not being fit case for grant of leave, petition dismissed with observation for expeditious trial.
Sh.Ijaz Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 16th November, 1986.
ORDER
JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Muhammad Anwar petitioner against order of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench dismissing his application for the grant of bail. A case is registered against the petitioner under section 161/162 P.P. C. read with section 5(2)47 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The petitioner was senior clerk in the office of the Assistant Advocate-General, Bahawalpur and he posed himself to be Assistant Advocate-General. The allegation against him is that he received illegal gratification amounting to Rs.14,000 from the complainant by pretending that he was acquainted with the High Court Judges and that he would get his men released on bail. After his arrest the amount of Rs.14,000 had been recovered at his instance.
2. It was argued by the learned counsel that the case against the petitioner is false and that he had been implicated because the complainant party had suspected that a cousin of the petitioner had abducted a girl of the village of the complainant and that he was helping the abductors. It was also submitted that according to the complainant the petitioner was given illegal gratification in November, 1986 but the FIR was lodged by the complainant against him on 1st June 1987. However it was submitted that the alleged amount was recovered from him 7 months after his arrest from an almirah in the office of the petitioner, i.e. Assistant Advocate-General's office at Bahawalpur. Thus according to the learned counsel the entire case against him as well as the recovery were false.
3. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel but in our view it is not a fit case for the grant of leave. However since the petitioner has been behind the bars for the past six months, the challan against him should be expeditiously put up along with the required sanction of the department concerned so that his trial is held as early as possible. With this observation the petition is dismissed.
M.I./M-305/SPetition dismissed