Nizam-Ud-Din V. The State,
Bench: Muhammad Hashim Kakar
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case concerns a bail application filed by Nizam-ud-din, who was accused in an FIA case involving large-scale corruption related to imported sugar. The allegation was that sugar meant for public distribution through the Utility Stores Corporation, at subsidized rates for poor communities in Sibi district, was instead diverted and sold in the open market—and possibly smuggled to Afghanistan—for higher profits. The applicant allegedly bought this subsidized sugar cheaply by colluding with officials of the Trading Corporation of Pakistan and Utility Stores Corporation, causing major financial loss to the government and depriving needy people of their rightful benefit.
The Balochistan High Court refused to grant bail. It found there was sufficient material on record, including recovered sugar from the applicant's godown and evidence of payments made to a USC employee, suggesting his involvement in the scheme. The court rejected his claim of being an innocent buyer, noting witness statements contradicted this. It described the case as a clear example of "mega corruption" involving collusion between government officials and private individuals, calling for strict action against such corruption. Since a co-accused's bail had already been denied on similar grounds, and the alleged offences fell under a category of law where bail is generally restricted, the court dismissed the application. This case highlights how courts treat corruption cases involving public welfare resources and government funds seriously at the bail stage.
یہ مقدمہ نظام الدین کی ضمانت کی درخواست سے متعلق ہے، جو درآمد شدہ چینی میں بڑے پیمانے پر بدعنوانی کے ایف آئی اے کیس میں ملزم تھا۔ الزام یہ تھا کہ وہ چینی جو یوٹیلیٹی سٹورز کارپوریشن کے ذریعے ضلع سبی کے غریب عوام کو رعایتی نرخوں پر تقسیم کی جانی تھی، اسے اس مقصد سے ہٹا کر کھلی منڈی میں زیادہ منافع کے عوض فروخت کر دیا گیا، اور ممکنہ طور پر افغانستان اسمگل بھی کیا گیا۔ الزام کے مطابق درخواست گزار نے ٹریڈنگ کارپوریشن آف پاکستان اور یوٹیلیٹی سٹورز کارپوریشن کے افسران کے ساتھ ملی بھگت کر کے یہ رعایتی چینی سستے داموں خریدی، جس سے حکومت کو بھاری مالی نقصان پہنچا اور ضرورت مند لوگ اپنے جائز حق سے محروم رہ گئے۔
بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ نے ضمانت دینے سے انکار کر دیا۔ عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ ریکارڈ پر کافی شواہد موجود ہیں، جن میں درخواست گزار کے گودام سے برآمد ہونے والی چینی اور یوٹیلیٹی سٹورز کارپوریشن کے ایک ملازم کو دی گئی ادائی
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
2012 Y L R 750 [Balochistan]
Before Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, J
NIZAM UD DIN ---Applicant Versus THE STATE---Respondent Criminal Bail Application No.239 of 2011, decided on 8th September, 2011. (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) --- ----Ss. 497/498---Bail ---Assessment of evidence---Principle ---Deeper appreciation of evidence is not warranted under the law at bail stage and only bird's eye view is to be made. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) --- ----S. 497---Penal Cod e (XLV of 1860), Ss.409/403/420/477- A/109/34---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2) ---Criminal breach of trust, dishonest misappropriation, cheating, falsification of accounts, criminal misconduct ---Bail, refusal of ---Act of accused had not only caused loss to the government exchequer, but he, with collusion of other accused, had also misappropriated huge quantity of sugar meant for poor and needy population of the District on a depreciated price--- Case was of mega -corruption in which government officials had joined hands with private persons and had deprived the needy people of the Province of their legal rights ---Record did not suggest any mala fides or ill -will against the accused ---Admittedly, official sugar was found in possession of accuse d---Co -accused had already been refused bail by High Court on merits ---Offences mentioned in the F.I.R. fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.---Bail was declined to accused in circumstances. Arther Victor for Applicant. Rauf Atta, St anding Counsel and Sultan Mehmood Afridi, Law Officer F.I.A., for the State.
Date of hearing: 30th August, 2011. JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, J. ---Applicant, Nizam -ud-din son of Haji Ghulam Haider, seeks post -arrest bail in case Crime No.13 of 2011, registered with Police Station, FIA, Quetta, on 23- 6-2011, by complainant Muhammad Hashim, IP, under sections 409, 403, 420, 477-A read with sections 109 and 34 of the P.P.C. and section 5(2)of Act -II of 1947.
The relevant facts fo r disposal of the instant application appear to be that the FIA authorities had received information to the effect that certain persons are involved in illegal purchase and selling of imported sugar in open market and further transporting the same to Afgha nistan, which was being supplied to the Utility Stores Corporation by the Trading Corporation of Pakistan, Karachi on depreciated price. On 23- 6-2011, on receiving secret information, the FIA authorities raided a Godown situated at Sirki Road, Quetta, wher e they found a truck, bearing Registration No.TKB - 027, parked and loaded with 700 bags (50 Kgs each) of imported sugar and on query, co -accused Shams Mehmood alias Malang, being the Incharge of the Godown, informed that the truck is ready for its delivery to one Raz Muhammad at Chaman. On further query and search, a huge quantity of imported sugar bags, which were provided by the TCP to USC for selling on depreciated rates, was recovered from the said truck and Godown. The allegation against the applicant i s that he is owner of the said Godown and the recovered imported sugar, which he, allegedly, purchased, with the help and connivance of the officials of Trading Corporation of Pakistan and Utility Stores Corporation on depreciated rate, with a view to sell the same in open market on higher rates as well as to transport the same to Afghanistan, thereby causing colossal losses to the State exchequer. 3. A bail application was moved by the applicant before the Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Balochistan, Que tta, who after hearing the parties, rejected the same vide order dated 27 -8-2011, hence this bail application. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record with their valuable assistance. Admittedly, deeper appreci ation is not warranted under the law at bail stage and only bird's eye view is to be made. Tentatively, there is sufficient material available on the record to believe that the applicant has committed the offence in question. It has been observed that the applicant is duly named in the F.I.R. During the course of inquiry held by the FIA, the applicant and his co- accused were found to be involved in the transaction of imported sugar, which has been recovered from the Godown the applicant. The contention of the applicant, being bona fide purchaser, has no legs to stand, as the record reveals that four cheques of Rs.1,40,00,000 have been sent in the name of Tahir Lashari, an employee of USC regarding the illegal purchase of sugar by the applicant. The stateme nts of Ikram Elahi and Amjad Ali, who are employees of USC, Sibi, furnished a complete answer to the said contention of the applicant. The act of the applicant has not only caused loss to the government exchequer, but accused persons, with collusion of eac h others, have also misappropriated huge quantity of sugar, meant for public and sent to Utility Stores Corporation; Sibi and its sale amongst the poor and needy population of District Sibi on depreciated price. To my mind, this is a textbook example of a case of mega corruption, in which the officials of USC, Sibi have joined hands with the private persons and have deprived the needy people of the Province from their legal rights and caused huge loss to the government exchequer. The corruption has become a menace, which has to be dealt with iron hands. There is nothing available on record to suggest that the case against the applicant is a product of any mala fide or ill -will. It is also an admitted position that the official sugar supplied to USC, Sibi, w as found in possession of the applicant. Besides the fact that prayer of bail of co -accused Naseem Umar Rind has been rejected by this court's order dated 29 - 8-2011 on merits From the available facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, case exists against the applicant, which does not entitle him to the concession of bail. Needless to mention here that the offences mentioned in the F.I.R. fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C Thus, in view of above, application is hereby dismis sed. The above observations are purely of tentative in nature, hence, the trial Court shall not get influenced from the instant order.
N.H.Q./113/Q Bail refused.