Brigadier (Retired) Qaisar Shahzad vs State S — 2025 MLD 122 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Brigadier (Retired) Qaisar Shahzad VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468, 471, 408 & 381---Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forged document, using as genuine a forged document, criminal breach of trust by a clerk or servant, theft by a servant or clerk from their master's property---Bail, grant of---Accusing was charged for traversing beyond his authority and executing two agreements and in pursuance thereof issued 37 cheques of equivalent amount of Rs.1,46,81,00,000/----Besides that, petitioner was further saddled with the accusations of having filed a civil suit on the basis of power of attorney, having forged signatures of plaintiff---First Information Report stood registered under multiple provisions for the attributed delinquencies of cheating, forgery and criminal breach of trust---Though initially offence under S.381, P.P.C., was also added but it was deleted during investigation---So far as, the offence under S.468, P.P.C., is concerned, its mischief is attracted when the forgery is committed for the purpose of cheating whereas S.471, P.P.C., is applicable when a forged document is used as genuine---Straightaway, it was observed that neither the agreements nor the power of attorneys (wakalatnamas) had yet been dispatched to handwriting expert for analysis---Admittedly, the agreements dated 25.10.2019 did not contain forged signatures of any person and their credentials were challenged solely on the premise that they were executed by the petitioner without any lawful authority---Beyond everything, it was noticed that the agreement dated 25.10.2019 was executed between "FS" and Brigadier "A" (Retired)---Brigadier "A" signed the document on behalf of a Joint Venture Management Committee ('JVMC')---So far as, petitioner was concerned, he simply countersigned the said agreement and was not even party to it---Though Brigadier "A" signed the said document on behalf of 'JVMC' but neither he was an accused nor witness in the case---Record showed that the civil suit with forged power of attorney of plaintiff was instituted on 21.08.2023, whereas the services of petitioner were terminated on 12.05.2020, a fact badly exposing the allegation of forgery---Offence of S.408, P.P.C., was applied for the issuance of 37 cheques in favour of "FS" but it was noticed that all these cheques pertained to the account of Bahria Town (Pvt. Ltd)---Not a single penny was withdrawn from the account of DHA, thus as a necessary consequence it could be held for the limited purposes of bail that he was having no dominion over the funds statedly disbursed in favour of "FS"---Sections 420 and 471, P.P.C., are bailable in nature and there was no concept of refusal of bail in such offences---On the contrary, though offences under Ss.408 & 468, P.P.C., are non-bailable but entail punishments upto seven years and due to that reason do not attract the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---In such like offences, the rule is bail and not jail---Case of prosecution entirely hinged upon the documentary evidence, which was in the possession of the Investigating Agency, thus there was not even a remote possibility of its tampering---Report under S.173, Cr.P.C., to the extent of petitioner stood submitted in Court and petitioner was no more required for the purposes of investigation---Bail was granted to the petitioner, in circumstances.

Brigadier (Retired) Qaisar Shahzad vs State S — 2025 MLD 122 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD