420, 468, 471 PPC - Judgements

Section 420, 468, 471 PPC - Judgements

420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Citation Name : 2025 MLD 245 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Muhammad Arif Zaman

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 420, 468 & 471---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5---Cheating and dishonestly inducing someone to deliver property, forgery for the purpose of cheating, use of a forged document as genuine, criminal misconduct---Appreciation of evidence---Accused were charged for committing fraud by preparing forged, fictitious and fabricated agreement to sell and grabbing a sum of Rs. 10,50,000/- from the complainant---Complainant had admitted that agreement to sell was executed with him by appellant No.2 as well as proclaimed offender not in the capacity of full owner of the land rather as purchaser of the land on the basis of agreement to sell, executed between appellate No. 2 and two others---However, it was duty of the prosecution to prove that appellant No.2 was not owner of any land there but prosecution did not produce any evidence in that regard---Moreover, it was not the case of the prosecution that appellant No.2 while claiming himself as full owner of the land made statement to Revenue Patwari regarding sale of the land to the complainant or any other person on the asking of the complainant or any mutation of the land was entered in the revenue record on the statement of appellant No.2 as owner---In both the impugned mutations, appellate No. 2 was not even signatory in any capacity---Furthermore, as per agreement to sell, if appellant No.2 failed to transfer land to the complainant, then remedy was before Civil Court for specific performance of the same or paying the double amount of the received earnest money---Therefore, prosecution had failed to prove the charge against appellant No.2---Appeal against conviction to the extent of appellant No.2 was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2025 MLD 245 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Muhammad Arif Zaman

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 420, 468 & 471---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5---Cheating and dishonestly inducing someone to deliver property, forgery for the purpose of cheating, use of a forged document as genuine, criminal misconduct---Appreciation of evidence---Accused were charged for committing fraud by preparing forged, fictitious and fabricated agreement to sell and grabbing a sum of Rs. 10,50,000/- from the complainant---Record showed that appellant No.1, who was acting as revenue Patwari of the relevant area Chak recorded Rapt No.571 dated 18.06.2006 in Roznamcha Waqiati; entered mutation No.9981 on 18.02.2006 regarding land in favour of Proclaimed Offender; he also entered mutation No.11223 and mutation No.11256 on the statement of Proclaimed Offender in favour of one "MS"---Perusal of said rapt revealed that it was incomplete, vague as well as dubious because neither parentage of Proclaimed Offender nor amount of sale was mentioned in the same---Similarly, measurement of the land i.e. how much land had been sold and handing over of the possession had also not been mentioned in the same---With reference to said incomplete rapt, mutation No.9981 was entered in the relevant register on 18.02.2006 by appellant No.1 but it was never sanctioned/attested by any Revenue Officer and for the said reason same was of no value---Therefore, appellant No.1 was having full knowledge of incomplete/dubious feature/aspect of the rapt being its author but he used the same and on the basis of said incomplete/dubious rapt, knowingly entered mutation No.9981 on 18.02.2006 in favour of Proclaimed Offender, which remained unsanctioned/unattested and was of no value but even then, he knowingly entered mutation bearing No(s).11223 and 11256 on the statement of Proclaimed Offender on the basis of said unsanctioned/unattested mutation No.9981---Both mutation No(s).11223 and 11256 were subject matter of the case---Therefore, prosecution had established that appellant No.1 knowingly committed forgery for the purpose of cheating, used forged document as genuine and also being public servant committed "criminal misconduct"---Appeal against conviction to the extent of appellate No. 1 was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2025 PLD 97 ISLAMABAD

Side Appellant : SHAFQAT HUSSAIN

Side Opponent : ABDUL HAMEED

Art. 128--- Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468 & 471---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 14 & 199---Constitutional petition---Quashing of FIR---Cheating and using forged documents---Paternity of an individual---Locus standi---Negative declaration---Scope---Dignity of individual---Protection of rights of women and children---Respondent/complainant alleged that petitioner/accused facilitated falsification of NADRA record reflecting an adopted child as his son---Plea raised by petitioner/accused was that question of paternity could not be determined by brining criminal charges---Validity---No negative declaration can be sought under S. 42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 with regard to paternity of an individual---Law only vests a right in an individual to seek a positive declaration regarding his/her paternity---Even a father cannot deny paternity of a child beyond the period prescribed in Art. 128 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---No third party, including a putative brother or sister or a family member or a relative, has locus standi to challenge paternity of an individual as no evidence can be accepted to negate statutory declaration made by Art. 128 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Prohibition against bringing a challenge against paternity of an individual is designed to protect right of such individual to dignity and privacy guaranteed by Art. 14 of the Constitution, as well as the collective interest of society in protecting rights and interests of women and children, including privacy, identity, and reputation of children from being besmirched from allegations of illegitimacy---Complainant sought to abuse process of law to question legitimacy and identity of child for pecuniary gain and in doing so he had used provisions of P.P.C. and Cr.P.C. to put pressure on the petitioner to enter into a settlement after instigating arrest of petitioner in relation to FIR in question---High Court in exercise of extraordinary Constitutional power, quashed FIR. in question that should never have been registered as no cognizable offence was made out in view of the petitioner claiming that he was father of minor as was reflected in various documents which were alleged to have been fabricated by petitioner---High Court imposed costs of Rs. 100,000/- upon respondent/complainant---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2025 PCrLJ 120 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

Side Appellant : State

Side Opponent : Ahmed Hassan

S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 161, 406, 409, 417, 420, 468 & 471---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5---Cheating, forgery, taking illegal gratification by corrupt or illegal means and criminal misconduct---Pre-arrest bail, cancellation of---Misuse of bail---Accused was charged for committing corruption/embezzlement in the official budget of City Hospital---Record showed that the Trial Court had granted the extraordinary relief to the accused/ respondent in a very ordinary manner---Trial Court had not recorded a single sentence/finding on the points of prima facie case and involvement of the accused/respondent in the present case---Trial Court had also not given a single reason regarding the consequences of arrest of accused/respondent---Record transpired that after a formal inquiry the case had been registered---Accused/respondent was directly charged in the FIR and his role of being the Medical Superintendent of the said Hospital was specifically mentioned therein---Beside the above, the case was one of documentary evidence and verification of the same was required---Prima facie accused/respondent was facing a charge structured upon documentary evidence---Accused/respondent during the days of occurrence was the Medical Superintendent of said Hospital, therefore, question of false implication did not arise---Question of rule of consistency did not arise because the co-accused had joined the investigation and he was later on released by High Court on post arrest bail---Trial Court had blatantly disregarded the established principle for grant of pre-arrest bail and granted exceptional remedy in favour of the accused/respondent on irrelevant grounds and upholding such an illegal order, which was clear example of wrong exercise of jurisdiction, was tantamount to setting a bad judicial precedent---If such kind of decision was not overturned, same would encourage future abuse of jurisdiction---Pre-arrest bail granted in favour of accused was withdrawn, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2025 YLR 281 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Dr. Iqrar Ahmad Khan

Side Opponent : Director General, Anti-Corruption Establishment

Ss. 409, 420, 468 & 471---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5---National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), S.18(d)---First Information Report, quashing of---Petitioner was Vice-Chancellor and after the completion of his service tenure, his successor got lodged a criminal case against him---Allegation against petitioner was that he made irregular appointments without advertisement in the newspapers---Validity---Admitted fact that the University was an autonomous body and its affairs were governed under the University of Agriculture, Faisalabad Act, 1973 and S.15 (4) of the Act dealt with the powers of Vice-Chancellor---Record showed that during two consecutive investigations, one conducted by the JIT constituted by the order of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, it came on surface that out of the list of 608 alleged irregular appointments, there was double entry of nine employees, whereas, out of the remaining 599 employees, 126 employees were appointed by the former Vice-Chancellors---Though certain appointments were made by the Vice Chancellor on temporary/adhoc basis, while exercising his powers conferred under the Act but he did not make even a single appointment on regular basis without the advertisement in the press or deviating from the proper procedure during his tenures---During investigation, it came on surface that it was long standing policy of the University approved by the Syndicate that the adhoc arrangements were renewable after six months for another six months---However, investigating teams could not find even a single instance where the Vice-Chancellor had made regular appointment without the approval of the Syndicate, as such there was no room left to assume that the Vice-Chancellor while making any appointments had derogated any law or misused his authority

Citation Name : 2025 PCrLJ 425 ISLAMABAD

Side Appellant : Faisal Maqbool Shaikh

Side Opponent : Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Interior, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad

Rr. 21 & 22---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468, 471, 477-A & 109---Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947), Ss. 5 & 23---Passport Control List (PCL)---Planing name of person on PCL---Pre-conditions---Petitioner was alleged to have committed offences of cheating, forgery, using a forged document, abetment, falsification of accounts and violation of foreign exchange restrictions---Authorities placed name of petitioner on Passport Control List---Validity---In the instant case there was no allegation that the petitioner was ever involved in anti-state activities or his visit to foreign countries was considered to be prejudicial to the State interest---Petitioner had never been refused the issuance of passport, so his case did not fall under the criteria mentioned in R.22 of the Passports Rules, 2021---As per R.22(1), the Federal Government was vested withthe powers to regulate the departure from and entry into Pakistan and also visit to foreign countries under the Act but in the instant case no approval of the Federal Government had been obtained---Allegedly, as per S.8(a) of Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, accused could not depart from Pakistan or be employed by any person after a Special Court had taken cognizance of a scheduled offence alleged to have been committed by an accused person, and such person would not, depart from Pakistan until the case had been finally decided by the Special Court---In the case in hand, the police had not submitted challan, so Trial Court had not taken cognizance of the matter---In the instant matter liberties of a senior citizen had been curtailed on the ground of registration of FIR but challan/report under S.173, Cr.P.C, had not been submitted since last one year---Non-submission of challan within stipulated period had highly been deprecated by the Superior Courts---Retention of petitioner's name on Passport Control List was violative of his fundamental rights to due process, liberty, life, and freedom of movement which were guaranteed by the Constitution---Petition was allowed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2025 PCrLJ 602 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Side Appellant : Obaid Khan

Side Opponent : State

S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 489-F & 420---Dishonestly issuing a cheque, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property---Bail, refusal of---Accused sought bail after arrest in an FIR lodged under Ss. 489-F & 420, P.P.C---Record so furnished would reveal that the allegations against the accused/petitioner prima facie found positive support from the cheque return memo as it had been highlighted that the cheque in question was returned un-paid for the want of funds in the drawer's account---Likewise, the contents of the FIR mentioned that the subject cheque was delivered to the complainant in the background of business relations---During the investigation it was found that track record of the accused/petitioner was also tainted as he was involved in similar cases in the past, as such, the Court was not inclined to exercise its judicial discretion in favour of the accused/petitioner---Bail in such like offences, punishment of which did not fall within the prohibitory limb of S.497, Cr.P.C is not a rule of universal thumb, rather each and every case has its own facts and circumstances and should be adjudicated upon on its own merits---Resultantly, the subject application stood dismissed.

Citation Name : 2025 MLD 122 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Brigadier (Retired) Qaisar Shahzad

Side Opponent : 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.

Citation Name : 2025 MLD 300 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Abdul Salam Arif

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 409, 420, 468 & 471---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5---Criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forged document, using as genuine a forged document, criminal misconduct---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Appellant was charged for committing misappropriation of Rs. 1,082,500/= and making changes in ledgers/pay rolls---Prosecution case was based primarily upon the evidence of four witnesses including Post Master and Clerk of Post Office---However, perusal of record clearly reflected that there was no direct evidence available on the record, which could connect the appellant with the commission of the crime as the evidence adducted by two witnesses could not be relied upon against the appellant for the reasons that they were nominated as accused in the first FIR with the same allegation of misappropriation of amount including the appellant---Whereas, Clerk of Post Office stated in his evidence that since the NCHD Authority approached the Divisional Superintendent GPO for opening the accounts of trainees for receiving the stipend and on his direction, the accounts of the trainees were opened for receiving the stipend in various Post Offices---Said witness also stated in his evidence that on 29.09.2011 appellant came along with account holder for receiving amount of Rs.10,82,500/- from whom an authority letter, issued by appellant, was obtained for withdrawal of the amount and then account holder was given the amount---However, that witness during course of his cross-examination clarified that the misappropriated amount was deposited in the account of "GN" and that as per list provided by NCHD the post office was bound to pay Rs.2500/- to each trainee---Nevertheless, the said account holder, who withdrew the amount, was not an accused in the present case---Further, that witness also confirmed that the authority letter produced did not bear the date---While the other witness who was working as Post Master at Post Office also clarified in his evidence that the appearance of account holder and copy of his CNIC was necessary---Crux of the testimonies of those two important witnesses, who belonged to Post Office wherefrom the misappropriated amount was withdrawn was that they did not implicate the appellant---So far as the evidence of complainant was concerned, he stated that the appellant deposited along with roster/list in GPO and confirmed that as per SOP it was not responsibility of appellant being DPML to receive the cheques and look after the finance and the same was to be verified by DGM---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2025 MLD 300 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Abdul Salam Arif

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2024 MLD 951 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Hafeez Ullah Shahid

Side Opponent : ASJ/JOP

Ss. 420, 468 & 471---Police Order (22 of 2002), Art. 155(1)(c)---Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document---Misconduct by the police---Accused-petitioner was charged for conducting defective investigation---For initiation of departmental action against any rank of Police Officer/Official, different authorities were authorized in the police hierarchy but for judicial prosecution respective Deputy Inspector General of Police was the authorized officer---Therefore, despite registration of FIR, sanction of prosecution further determined the continuation of proceedings against the accused Police Officer/Official---If such sanction was not available then Court could not proceed further---Where the offences are non-cognizable Police Complaints Authority can pass direction for action under S.155, Cr.P.C., for investigation with the permission of concerned magistrate or if they are scheduled offences of Anti-Corruption Establishment, reference could be sent to that department for further action---Police Complaints Authority, independent in nature by its composition as per Art. 104 of the Police Order, 2002, shall consist of a Chairperson and six members---Its establishment is essential for running the system smoothly and in accordance with prevailing law---Even otherwise it was trite that when a statute described or required a thing to be done in a particular manner; it should be done in that manner or not at all---If a complaint of neglect, failure or excess committed by any Police Officer/Official was received by the Ex-Officio Justice of the Peace, he could simply pass it to District Police Officer concerned for placing it before the Police Complaints Authority who was authorized to channelize it as per Art. 36 of the Police Order, 2002, or Ex-Officio justice of the Peace could direct the aggrieved person to approach the Police Complaints Authority by filing an application and further course of action shall be taken care of by the said authority under the law---If both the directions were not met, Ex-officio Justice of the peace can proceed as per law---Allegation of defective investigation had been leveled against the petitioner which offence was non-cognizable---No defect was found in direction passed by Ex-officio Justice of the Peace for transfer of investigation, which did not call for any interference; however, direction for registration of FIR under Art. 155(1)(c) of the Police Order, 2002, was set aside with the direction to concerned SHO to enter information in a register, maintained under S.155 of Cr.P.C. and proceed strictly in accordance with law---With these observations, petition stood disposed of.

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 909 ISLAMABAD

Side Appellant : Ghazala Ali

Side Opponent : Sikandar Ramzan Chaudhry

Ss. 420, 468 & 471---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 249-A---Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, using as genuine a forged document, forgery---Accused moved an application under S. 249-A, Cr.P.C., before the Trial Court for his acquittal claiming that the charge against him was groundless and there was no probability of him being convicted of any offence---Said application was allowed---Validity---Record showed that the alleged transaction of transfer of allotment in the name of two brothers i.e. respondent No.1 and husband of respondent No.2 was made in the year 1991 while subject FIR was registered by the appellant in the year 2018 i.e. after twenty-seven years of alleged transaction and after about twenty years of the first agreement wherein she had also been a signatory---Before the registration of instant FIR, the appellant had already filed a suit on 09.01.2018 for cancellation of agreement dated 17.01.1998 with a delay of more than twenty years---As there were two reports of Handwriting Expert of even date, filed before the Trial Court along with reports under S.173, Cr.P.C, one allegedly contained fake signatures of the official concerned while the other, filed with supplementary report under S.173, Cr.P.C, testified as genuine---In order to verify the veracity of the report, on the direction of the Court, FIA filed comprehensive report on 24.10.2022---As per said report, made part of file, signatures of late husband of respondent No. 2 were similar in characteristics with his routine signatures---Thus, report negated allegation of forgery, as alleged by the appellant in her F.I.R and pressed to seek full-length inquiry on the basis of reports containing fake signatures of the official concerned, which, of course, deserved stern departmental action against the delinquent/s, after tracing them out by the FIA and the police as well---Apart from fake Handwriting Expert Report, rest of incriminating material made basis to indict the respondents for the offence alleged, comprised of documents mentioned in the recovery memo---None of those documents even remotely suggested that any fraud, as alleged, had been played by the respondents---Neither the CDA nor the investigation agency alleged any forgery in preparation of said documents---Thus, entire prosecution evidence did not implicate the respondents for commission of alleged fraud and forgery---Charge against respondents, on examination of incriminating material, appeared to be groundless and there was no probability of the respondents being convicted of any offence, in case prosecution was allowed to lead entire prosecution evidence---Circumstances established that charge against the respondents was baseless and there was no remote probability of their conviction in case the prosecution was allowed to produce entire evidence---Appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Citation Name : 2024 YLR 2561 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Muhammad Bilal

Side Opponent : State

S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A & 109---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5---Criminal breach of trust, cheating by personation, cheating, forgery of valuable security, will etc., forgery, using as genuine a forged document, falsification of account, abetment, criminal misconduct---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Accused-petitioners were charged for committing misappropriation of funds from the salary accounts of HESCO employees from 2017 to 2023, which caused financial loss---Action against the applicants was not initiated on the complaint of HESCO---Action initiated by the FIA was based on "source report"---Noteworthy that the FIA was still struggling to find any money trail of the ill-gotten money back to the applicants---Moreover, FIA was not in a position to say how many employee salary accounts were manipulated, nor was the FIA in a position to show what loss each person caused in apportioning the phenomenal sum they said the applicants were liable to have embezzled---Equally noteworthy was that internal and external auditors did not discover the discrepancies for seven years and there did not seem to be audit reports on which HESCO relied---After seven years, FIA, not HESCO, discovered that a fraud of such a magnitude had occurred in HESCO---Federal Investigating Agency's failure to detect the crime earlier raised the question of its effectiveness---Apparently, the FIA had used its powers to register cases and arrest those accused in a pre-mature, mechanical and callous manner with little regard for people's right to dignity enshrined as a fundamental right in our Constitution---Law enforcement agencies could not be permitted to have such unbridled powers---Thoughts, reasons, and observations of the matter made the case against the applicants as one of further inquiry---Applicants had made out a case for the concession of bail---Bail applications were allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2024 MLD 1796 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Muhammad Aslam Khan

Side Opponent : Judicial Magistrate

Ss. 154 & 173---Police Rules, 1934, R. 24.7---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468 & 471---Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forged document, using as genuine a forged document---Report of Police Officer---Cancellation of FIR---Scope---Petitioner assailed order passed by Magistrate whereby he had cancelled the FIR on the recommendation of the police---Validity---Police after thorough investigation recommended the case for cancellation while following the process mentioned in R. 24.7 of Police Rules, 1934---Magistrate while cancelling a criminal case is required to act judicially, in that he has to act fairly, justly and honestly, a duty common to the exercise of all state power---Allegedly, an application for change of investigation was filed well before the Magistrate agreed with the case-cancellation report---Police could validly take up such application for consideration and if it reaches the conclusion that there are grounds for change of investigation, Senior Police Officer can direct the concerned investigator to seek permission from the concerned Magistrate to reinvestigate the matter, and then Magistrate can pass appropriate order---If the permission is declined then cancellation report agreed by the Magistrate shall be deemed as final and complainant/petitioner is at liberty to recourse to alternate remedy by initiating a private prosecution---Constitution petition was disposed of.

Citation Name : 2024 YLR 405 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Mst. ROZEENA RAZZAQ

Side Opponent : Mirza MOSHIN ALI JAH

Ss. 415, 420, 463, 469 & 177---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 195---Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for purpose of harming reputation, furnishing false information---Cognizance---Complainant lodged FIR against respondent stating that he contracted marriage with her concealing the fact that he was already married, having three children and further he belonged to Fiq-a-jafaria---Complainant thereafter received divorce through Whatsapp---Report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted before the Magistrate with the opinion that the respondent had committed offence of cheating and false statement before the Nikahkhwan, but the Magistrate while disagreeing with the opinion of the Investigating Officer, declined to take cognizance on the said report---Validity---From the material collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation, it came on surface that the accused provided false information with regard to his faith as 'Sunni' and his earlier marriage, with an object to commit cheating with the complainant---Perusal of the S. 415, P.P.C. showed that for attracting the offence of cheating, deception was an essential element, which prima facie was available in the case of complainant and was attracted to the respondent---In the charge sheet S. 420, P.P.C., was also applied by the Investigating Officer---During investigation the respondent had not given any explanation that as to why he had wrongly informed about his faith and did not inform about his earlier marriage---In absence of such explanation, at the very initial stage it could be presumed that the intention of the respondent was nothing but to deceive the complainant---Hence prima facie S. 420, P.P.C., was also attracted to the case of the respondent---Bare reading of S. 469, P.P.C. coupled with S. 463, P.P.C., showed that prima facie said section too was attracted to the case of respondent---Perusal of the impugned order showed that the Judicial Magistrate while passing the impugned order had not considered said facts but had announced a pre-trial judgment and thereby the Magistrate had skipped the procedure---Magistrate was not competent to pass a pre-trial judgment and was required to examine material brought on record by the prosecution---No doubt, the opinion of the police was not binding upon the Magistrate but in the instant matter the Magistrate completely ignored the investigation conducted and material collected by the Investigating Officer--- Criminal Application was allowed and accused was sent up for trial, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2024 MLD 1854 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

Side Appellant : Ghulam Murtaza

Side Opponent : State

S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 406, 409, 417, 420, 465, 468 & 471---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Rule of consistency---Record transpired that the present accused/petitioner, had been implicated in the offences which were prima facie not attracted against him---No denial of the fact that publication of the tender in the PEPRA website was the prime and principle liability/responsibility of the then District Health Officer according to the rules, being sole custodian of the concerned department, but it seemed that the same liability had been malafidely/ dishonestly shifted to junior staff member who was even not the concerned/ministerial staff, rather he was technical staff---This was against the law/rules and such dishonest act of the concerned authority created serious doubts and dents in the case of the prosecution---Admittedly and surprisingly one of the co-accused who had been allegedly attributed an identical role had been released by the police under S.169, Cr.P.C.---Moreover, the then District Health Officer had also been exonerated and given clean chit from the Investigation Officer of the present case, which also attracted the universal, "Rule of Consistency" in favor of the present accused/petitioner---Undoubtedly, offences under Ss. 417, 420, 465, 471, P.P.C, were bailable offences, whereas offence under S.409, P.P.C, fallen within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C, which prima facie was not attracted in the present case to the extent of the present accused/petitioner---Matter in hand required further probe into the guilt of the accused/petitioner---In such like cases grant of bail is a rule and refusal thereof is an exception---Accused/petitioner was behind the bars for the last couple of months, waiting for commencement of the trial of the case---Investigation of the case was complete and the present accused/petitioner was no more required for further investigation---Thus, the case of the accused/petitioner squarely fell within the ambit of S.497(2) Cr.P.C, entitling him for the concession of post arrest bail and the same was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2024 SCMR 1525 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : AHMAD NAWAZ

Side Opponent : State

S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468 & 471---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Cheating, fraud and forgery---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---In the present case, FIR had been lodged with a delay of approximately five months of alleged forgery and fabrication of documents and such delay had not been sufficiently explained by the counsel for the complainant---Secondly, there was a status quo (stay order) in the field granted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge---Therefore, the instant case fell within the parameter of further inquiry and allegations were to be decided by the trial court after recording evidence---Petitions were converted into appeals and were allowed, and petitioners (accused persons) were admitted to bail.

Citation Name : 2024 SCMR 1103 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : Syed SAKHAWAT HUSSAIN

Side Opponent : State

S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 34, 109, 406, 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Banking scam---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Accused was alleged to be one of the beneficiaries of a banking scam, who had received part of the misappropriated amount---Petitioner (accused) was not named in the list of 287 account holders who were nominated in the alleged unlawful transactions---Sole allegation against the petitioner was that his bank statements indicated receipt of a certain amount in his account as a beneficiary from an account holder of the bank---However, it was notable that the account holder in question from whom the amount was transferred to the petitioner was not implicated or nominated in the FIR---Furthermore, the alleged amount was not transferred to the petitioner's account at the bank where the scam occurred but was received allegedly in an account maintained by the petitioner at another bank, which was registered in the name of a business---Mere receipt of funds in a bank account could not be construed as proof of involvement in the scam at present stage as there was insufficient and incomplete material available on the record to establish any connection of the petitioner---Petitioner's criminal liability could only be determined after recording of evidence by the Trial Court---Mere nomination of the petitioner in the FIR without substantive material and without nominating the account holder by whom the amount was allegedly transferred in the bank account of the petitioner's company was insufficient to justify his further detention---Petitioner was behind the bars for more than nine months, and there was no likelihood of progress in the trial---Case of the petitioner was one of further inquiry---Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed, and the petitioner was granted bail.

Citation Name : 2024 MLD 1317 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Agha Siraj Ahmed Pathan

Side Opponent : State

S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468, 471 & 34---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery, using as genuine a forged document, common intention, criminal misconduct---Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Further inquiry---Prosecution case was that 28-acres land was leased out for thirty years to seven persons, however after expiry of said period, the land was fraudulently transferred in the name of one of the said persons vide fake documents---Entire case of the prosecution depended upon the documentary evidence which was available with the prosecution---Things did not end here, the statement under S.161, Cr.P.C. of a witness was available wherein he disclosed that he appeared before the Investigating Officer and admitted the conversion of 30 years of lease land and installment was also paid---Application was filed by the main accused to the Member Land Utilization Board of Revenue Department wherein the minutes of the meeting of the Chief Minister Sindh held that "examine and put up" after scrutiny; the land was given to said accused as such he had also paid some installment but in the summary note, it was written that during the process the Supreme Court of Pakistan had passed an order in a Suo Motu Case banning all kinds of mutations/allotment/transfer or conversion of any State land or any transaction or entry in the record of rights in that regard in revenue record or till the entire revenue record was reconstructed---Allegedly, due to the ban, no entry was kept on record of right but the same was forged---Record reflected that DDO Revenue passed the order on 09.07.2011 and in compliance thereof, the entry was made on the same day 09.07.2011, much prior to the ban---Case had been challaned and the applicants/accused were no more required for further investigation---No purpose would be served to send accused to jail---Applicants/accused had made out case for the grant of bail in terms of subsection 2 of S.497, Cr.P.C---Bail application was allowed and interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner earlier was confirmed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 2014 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Khuda Bux

Side Opponent : State

S. 540---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 34---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Summoning of witnesses---Scope---After completing the evidence of prosecution and statement of accused recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C, the prosecution filed an application for verification of the appointment orders of the applicant as teacher from Education Department---Such application was allowed being not opposed by applicant---Pursuant to it, a report was submitted by the Directorate of Schools Education (Primary)---According to that report, the appointment order of applicant was alleged to be fabricated---Applicant filed a similar application for production and verification of his appointment orders from the appointing authority, which was allowed---Pursuant to that order, a report was submitted on behalf of Secretary to Government, which report alleged that the appointment of the applicant for the post of Primary School Teacher was genuine whereas his appointment as High School Teacher was fake---In that backdrop, the applicant moved present application for summoning certain witnesses through Court, which was dismissed by the trial Court---Validity---Need to summon and examine new witnesses arose for the applicant when the trial Court initially granted the prosecution's application and subsequently approved the applicant's request for verification of the applicant's appointment order---Such process resulted in the submission of two separate, yet contradictory, verification reports---In the wake of that development, the applicant moved the Application under S.540, Cr.P.C, for summoning witnesses---Salutary principle of criminal judicial proceedings is to uncover the truth and to reach a just conclusion, ensuring that an innocent individual is not punished due to technicalities, whether on his part or on the part of the court---Further, the criminal justice system is inquisitorial rather than adversarial---Thus, it falls upon the Court to arrive at a just decision in the case---Any evidence deemed essential for that purpose must be presented, though it remains open to challenge regarding its truthfulness through cross-examination---Perusal of the impugned order showed that it entirely focused on and evaluated the applicant's request to summon and re-examine the fifth witness but remained completely silent as regards the summoning of the other four witnesses---In the absence of assigning any reason, the impugned order appeared arbitrary and unjust---Criminal Revision Application was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2024 YLR 2561 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Muhammad Bilal

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2024 MLD 1796 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Muhammad Aslam Khan

Side Opponent : Judicial Magistrate

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 2014 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Khuda Bux

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2024 MLD 1020 ISLAMABAD

Side Appellant : Dr. Shireen M. Mazari

Side Opponent : Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Interior, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad

Rr. 21 & 22---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468, 471& 477-A---Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947), Ss. 5 & 23---Passport Control List (PCL)--- Pre-conditions--- Petitioner was alleged to have committed offences of cheating, forgery, using forged document, falsification of accounts and violation of foreign exchange restrictions---Authorities placed name of petitioner on Passport Control List---Validity---Authorities failed to provide exceptional circumstances for placing name of petitioner on PCL who was a female, remained an Associate Professor and had also served as a chairperson of department of Defense Strategic Studies of Quaid-i-Azam University (QAU), Islamabad, for a long period--- Petitioner remained Federal Minister for human rights, obtained bail in all cases registered against her, and had never been declared proclaimed offender---Nothing was placed on record that could indicate that Federal Government had given approval regarding placing name of petitioner on Passport Control List (PCL) as provided in R.22 (1) of Passports Rules, 2021---Placing petitioner's name on PCL was violative of her fundamental rights to due process, liberty, life, and freedom of movement which were guaranteed by the Constitution---High Court directed the authorities to remove name of petitioner from PCL as it was unjustified, illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2024 MLD 1317 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Agha Siraj Ahmed Pathan

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2024 MLD 951 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Hafeez Ullah Shahid

Side Opponent : ASJ/JOP

Citation Name : 2024 YLR 1264 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Mian TARIQ AZIZ

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 249 & 561-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 467, 468 & 471---Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for valuable security, forged document, using as genuine a forged document---Proceedings in FIR stayed till outcome of civil cases---Petitioner applied for a stay of proceedings under S. 249, Cr.P.C., on the ground that four civil suits concerning the disputed property were pending---Said application was dismissed---Decision of the trial Court was upheld in revision by the Revisional Court--- Validity--- Respondent No.2 claimed that Sale Deed in question was bogus--- Petitioner had produced documents which prima facie showed that on 03.12.1995 father of respondent No. 2 executed an agreement with the petitioner in respect of the land measuring 03 kanals 15 marlas and agreed to sell it to him for Rs.616,000/---Said seller received Rs.100,000/- as earnest money, of which Rs.50,000/- was in cash and the remainder in two cheques of Rs.25,000/- each---On the same day, seller delivered the possession of the land to the petitioner---Petitioner had submitted a copy of the building plan of a Mill sanctioned by the competent authority on 28.03.1996 which included the disputed land---Seller/father of respondent No. 2 lived for 12 long years after the registration of Sale Deed, but neither he challenged it nor instituted any proceedings to recover possession of the land in question---Respondent No.2 lodged an FIR nine years after the death of her father---Respondent No.2 maintained that she came to know about the registration of Sale Deed on 12.04.2017 through the Halqa Patwari when the petitioner presented it to him for mutation---However, the record contradicted her and showed that she filed a complaint about the said sale deed with Police Station in the year 2012---Police conducted an extensive inquiry and it was disposed of as a result of its findings---Moreover deceased seller had mortgaged the land to some other persons and failed to redeem that mortgage within 60 years---Resultantly, said mortgagees filed a suit seeking a declaration that title of mortgagor had been extinguished and that they had become its owners---Said suit was decreed ex parte---Respondent No.2 applied under S. 12(2), C.P.C., to have it set aside, but the civil Court dismissed the application---Respondent No. 2 assailed that order in revision, but it was also dismissed---Prior to that the petitioner had filed a suit against Respondent No.2 seeking a declaration regarding his title and permanent injunction---On 02.05.2017, the latter instituted a lawsuit against the petitioner for cancellation of Sale Deed---Earlier, she got two Mutations sanctioned regarding the inheritance of her father in respect of Khasra Nos. 510 and 511---Then, on 08.12.2015, respondent No. 2 filed a suit for possession (along with permanent injunction) against the petitioner regarding land measuring 07 kanals 03 marlas comprised in those Khasras which was decreed ex parte on 26.04.2016---Petitioner had filed an application under O. XXI, R. 99 & 103 read with S. 151, C.P.C. objecting to the execution of that decree---All such proceedings were currently pending---Dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2 involved intricate questions of law and facts---Prima facie, the eligibility of respondent No.2 to lodge the FIR was also contingent on the outcome of the civil litigation---Authenticity of Sale Deed could not be determined without a proper trial by the Civil Court where lawsuits of both sides were pending, thus it was just and appropriate that the proceedings in FIR be stayed till the final decision of the civil cases---Petition was accepted and the impugned orders were set aside, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2023 YLR 250 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : ABDUL JABBAR

Side Opponent : State

S. 345---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 420---Dishonestly inducing delivery of property---Compounding the offence---Scope---Perusal of S. 345, Cr.P.C. reveals that offence under S. 420, P.P.C. can be compounded with the permission of Court by "the person cheated".

Citation Name : 2023 YLR 250 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : ABDUL JABBAR

Side Opponent : State

S. 420---Dishonestly inducing delivery of property---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Scope---Accused persons were alleged to have made a (Charitable) institution for paying Rs.50000/- for the daughters' marriage, for children school fee and for medical treatment but for obtaining said amount an amount of Rs.15000/- had to be deposited as advance; when complainant and others asked for payment of promised amount, they were issued "Form" and told that the institution's team would come and deliver the amount at home, however, subsequently nothing was paid to affectees---Validity---No receipt containing signatures of accused persons showing receiving of alleged amount from any affected person was produced by the prosecution---"Form" issued to the complainant was not produced---Publications/advertisements as well as letter/form containing "Congratulations" were produced by the complainant to police and not recovered from possession of accused persons---When receiving of any amount/valuable security/property or anything by the accused persons through cheating and dishonest inducement from the complainant or anyone else had not been proved then basic ingredients constituting offence under S. 420, P.P.C. were missing in the case---Prosecution had failed to prove charge under S. 420, P.P.C.---Criminal revision was accepted and the accused persons were acquitted of the charge, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2023 MLD 855 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Side Appellant : BILAL AHMAD

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 420, 463, 468 & 471---Cheating, forgery and using forged document as genuine---Appreciation of evidence---Accused was a police official who was alleged to have used a motorcycle with fictitious number plate---Trial Court convicted the accused for cheating and forgery and sentenced him to imprisonment for three years---Validity---Fixing of fictitious number plate on motorcycle would have been an offence under Motor Vehicle Ordinance, 1965 but provision of S. 473, P.P.C. could not be attracted---Applicability of provision of S. 420, P.P.C. was not attracted as accused had not dishonestly induced anyone for delivery of any property---Similarly, provision of S. 468, P.P.C. was also not attracted against accused, as he had not committed any forgery for the purpose of cheating---High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and acquitted him of the charge as prosecution failed to prove its case against him---Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2023 MLD 1945 ISLAMABAD

Side Appellant : PAKISTAN ENGINEERING COUNCIL

Side Opponent : FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

Ss. 409, 420, 467, 468 & 471---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1975 (V of 1976), S. 27---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Quashing of FIR---Renewal and upgradation of licenses---Petitioner/ Engineering Council sought quashing of FIR registered with Federal Investigating Agency with regard to renewal and upgradation of licenses on the basis of fake documents---Validity---Allegations mentioned in FIR were mainly related to renewal and upgradation of licenses on fake documents in connivance with employees of the Council---Renewal or upgradation of licenses was one of the functions of the Council described under Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976---Council was the competent forum to examine whether any license was validly renewed or upgraded---For such reason relevant statute explicitly barred jurisdiction of Courts unless a complaint was made by the Council---When the Council in exercise of its powers under Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976, reached to a conclusion that any renewal or upgradation was without lawful authority and result of connivance of its employees, it was only then that the a complaint would be sent for trial of the offences mentioned in S. 27 of Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976, to Court of a Magistrate of the First Class---Determination of the Council regarding allegation of commission of offences mentioned in S. 27 of Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976, was a pre-condition to presume that any employee of the Council could have been complicit in relation thereto---Act of registration of FIR by Federal Investigating Agency was in disregard to the explicit bar contained under S. 27(6) of Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976---High Court quashed the FIR, as registration of criminal case and subsequent proceedings would be an exercise in futility, wastage of time and abuse of the process of the Court in view of the explicit bar contained in S. 27(6) of Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976---High Court directed Pakistan Engineering Council to consider allegations mentioned in the complaint and proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with law---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2023 YLR 485 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Side Appellant : IKRAM-UL-HASSAN

Side Opponent : State

S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 409, 419 & 420---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5---Forgery---Criminal mis-conduct---Bail, refusal of---Scope---Allegations levelled against the accused persons pertained to preparing fake documents, making forged entries in record, misappropriation of a huge amount from Government treasury and fixing stamps and signs of different persons including Sub-Registrar---Principal accused was the registration clerk in the office of Sub-Registrar who had misused his assignment---Characters of accused persons had become apparent after investigation and specific roles had been attributed to them, which were corroborated by documentary evidence as well as statements of witnesses recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C.---Offence with which the accused persons were charged fell within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.---In such like cases refusal of bail was a rule and acceptance was an exception---Accused persons had failed to point out any special feature which could bring their cases in any of the exceptions---Accused persons had also failed to substantiate that their involvement in the cases was a product of mala fide or ill-will on the part of complainants or investigation agency---Case of one of the accused persons was different from others as he was only a marginal witness of power of attorney and he was not involved in other chain of offences, as such, he was admitted to bail---Bail applications of other accused persons were dismissed.

Citation Name : 2023 MLD 1079 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Side Appellant : ZAHID KHAN

Side Opponent : State

S. 7---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 387, 506, 419, 420 & 34---Telegraph Act (XIII of 1885), S. 25---Foreigners Act (XXXI of 1946), S. 14---Act of terrorism, putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt in order to commit extortion, criminal intimidation, cheating by personation, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for valuable security, common intention, penalty for causing annoyance, illegal entering into Pakistan---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused were charged for making threatening calls to complainant for demand of extortion money (Bhatta)---Record prima facie falsified the allegation of the complainant pertaining to the threat calls for the simple reason that only a single call from the alleged cell number of the accused to the cell number of the complainant was found in the record---During the investigation not an iota of evidence had been collected which could prima facie speak of the fact that the subject SIM was in the name of the accused---Not only the complainant but even the supporting witness had categorically highlighted in their respective statements that the calls in question were for contribution of funds for the welfare of the unattended segment of the society, orphans widows, etc.---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2023 MLD 1079 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Side Appellant : ZAHID KHAN

Side Opponent : State

S. 7---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 387, 506, 419, 420 & 34---Telegraph Act (XIII of 1885), S. 25---Foreigners Act (XXXI of 1946), S. 14---Act of terrorism, putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt in order to commit extortion, criminal intimidation, cheating by personation, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for valuable security, common intention, penalty for causing annoyance, illegal entering into Pakistan---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of eight days in lodging FIR---Effect---Accused were charged for making threatening calls to complainant for demand of extortion money (Bhatta)---Record of call data so furnished only spoke of the cellular connectivity of the accused and complainant only on 30.03.2021, whereas, the event had been reported to the local police on 08.04.2021 followed by registration of the case vide FIR---On record, no plausible excuse or explanation regarding such delay of almost eight (08) days was found despite the fact that the accused was allegedly conscious enough that the subject threatening calls for "Bhatta" were received more than a week ago---In such circumstances there was a wider scope of consultation and deliberation on part of complainant---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2023 YLR 1784 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : AHMAD DIN

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 420, 468 & 471---Dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document---Sentence, reduction in---Petition-convict was a first offender, having no criminal antecedents, was a man of old age and desired rehabilitation and showed remorse and repentance to become a useful person in society---High Court observed that the convict should be given a chance for doing so---Revision petition was dismissed with the modification that his sentence was reduced to the one already undergone.

Citation Name : 2023 PCrLJ 1688 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD LATIF

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 419, 420, 468, 471 & 109---Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 (VIII of 1975), Ss. 3(1), 4(1) & Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Impersonating a candidate during an exam for recruitment in Federal Investigation Agency--- Quashing of FIR---Federal Investigation Agency (FIA)---Jurisdiction to register and investigate an FIR---Through the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 ('the Act'), the FIA, in terms of Schedule to the Act, has been granted jurisdiction to take cognizance in respect of several offences under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 ("P.P.C.") which are cognizable by the local police also---For the FIA to exercise its jurisdiction in the matter of offences enumerated in the Schedule to the Act, there has to be some nexus between the offences complained of and the Federal Government---Offences under Ss. 419, 420, 468 & 471, P.P.C., specified in the impugned FIR, are included in the Schedule to the Act---Additionally, the offence of abetment punishable under S. 109, P.P.C. has also been made cognizable by the FIA under S. 3 of the Act---Impugned FIR was registered against the petitioner (accused) when allegedly he was appearing in a computer based test for recruitment in the FIA while impersonating a candidate, therefore, the impugned FIR prima facie discloses commission of the said offence against the agency of the Federal Government---Superintendence and administration of the FIA vests in the Federal Government in terms of S. 4(1) of the Act---FIA was, therefore, possessed of lawful authority to take cognizance in the present case, register the impugned FIR and investigate the same---Neither the petitioner pleaded particulars of mala fide of complainant (Sub-Inspector FIA) or his motive to falsely implicate the petitioner nor has he placed any material on record to establish the same---Constitutional petition seeking quashing of FIR was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2023 YLR 1449 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : NAVEED AHMED

Side Opponent : State

S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 406 & 34---Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, criminal breach of trust and common intention---Pre-arrest bail, refusal of---Failure to join investigation---Misuse of bail facility---Involvement of accused in cases of similar nature---Scope---Accused sought pre-arrest bail in an FIR lodged under Ss. 420, 406 & 34, P.P.C.---Admittedly, accused had not joined the investigation and misused the concession of pre-arrest bail as allegations of issuing threats were made by the complainant---Accused was a habitual offender of committing such type of offences and was involved in number of cases---Name of accused appeared in the FIR and he had not uttered a single word as to why he was falsely involved in the case---Prima facie, reasonable grounds were available for believing that the accused had committed the alleged offence---Ingredients for grant of pre-arrest bail were missing in the case---Petition for grant of pre-arrest bail was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2023 MLD 1396 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : ZAHID MEHMOOD

Side Opponent : State

S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 419, 420, 506, 353 & 186---Cheating by personation, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, criminal intimidation, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions---Pre-arrest bail, cancellation of---Record showed that the complainant or the witnesses had no reason to falsely implicate the petitioner---Complainant and witnesses stood by their statements recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C.---No ill-will or animosity was attributed to any of them---Deep analysis of the evidence was forbidden at bail stage---Admittedly, no pre-arrest bail could be granted on the basis of pleas structured on parallel stories and bald assertions---Act of quackery was not only against society rather humanity, thus, bail matter in such like cases should be decided by the Court with dynamic approach---Above all, no mala fide lurking behind arrest of the petitioner was hinted at by him, a sine qua non for pre-arrest bail--- After collecting sufficient/convincing material, Investigating Agency confirmed involvement of the petitioner in the case, thus, the petitioner failed to make out a case for confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail---Petition was dismissed, in circumstances and ad-interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the petitioner was recalled.

Citation Name : 2023 MLD 255 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Side Appellant : ANYI SUNDY alias JOE

Side Opponent : State

S. 497--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 406, 409, 419, 420, 468 & 471---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Anti-Money Laundering Act (VII of 2010), Ss. 3 & 4---Criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, criminal misconduct and money laundering---Bail, grant of---Statutory delay, principle of---Pre-condition---Accused was behind the bars for last 15 months and delay in conclusion of trial was not attributed to him---Validity---Statutory right to be released on bail flowed from the Constitutional right to liberty and fair trial under Arts. 9 & 10-A of the Constitution---Act or omission on the part of accused to delay timely conclusion of trial must be result of a visible concerted effort orchestrated by accused---Purpose and objective of law was to ensure that trial of an accused was conducted expeditiously and pre-conviction detention of accused did not extend beyond the period of one year in cases involving offences not punishable by death---If trial of accused was not concluded within one year of his detention, statutory right to be released on bail ripened in his favour---Bail was granted, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2023 MLD 855 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Side Appellant : BILAL AHMAD

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2023 PCrLJ 456 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Dr. SHAFI-UR-REHMAN AFRIDI

Side Opponent : State

S. 497---Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XVII of 2002), S. 25---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468 & 471---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5 (2)---Anti-Money Laundering Act (VII of 2010), Ss. 3 & 4---Federal Investigating Agency Act, 1974 (VIII of 1975), S. 3---Cheating, using forged document, misconduct and money laundering---Bail, grant of---Non-schedule offence---Federal Investigating Agency---Jurisdiction---Illegal gratification---Proof---Accused persons were arrested for issuing provisional license to Oil Marketing Company, who sold fossil fuel through its different retail outlets---Validity---Provisions of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 was not part of scheduled offences and it had provided a complete mechanism for filing of complaint and had overriding effect over other laws---Sentence was provided in S. 25 of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, and Federal Investigating Agency Act, 1974 was only dealing with matters of scheduled offences---Federal Investigating Agency had no jurisdiction to deal with such matters and only Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority has jurisdiction---Oil Marketing Company had already paid fine and the matter was still to be decided by Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority---Federal Investigating Agency lodged FIR against accused persons which spoke volumes---While performing functions under Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, authorities were immune from prosecution---In FIR there was no allegation against accused persons that they received any illegal gratification from any manner---No direct evidence was available on record against accused persons in order to establish that they made tempering in record or committed fraud or deprived any person from his valuable property---Accused persons declared their assets in their income tax returns and nothing was concealed---No cogent evidence was collected by investigating officer that petitioners were involved in commission of offence falling within the purview of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010---Case against accused persons required further inquiry, who were behind the bars for a period of about three months and were no more required by Federal Investigating Agency for the purpose of further investigation---No useful purpose would be served by keeping accused persons in jail for an indefinite period---Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2023 PCrLJ 1092 ISLAMABAD

Side Appellant : JAVAD KHAN

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 29 & 44---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 419 & 420---Two sets of offences, cognizance of---Principle---Federal Investigating Agency is the designated agency under S. 29 of Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 and is not vested with jurisdiction to investigate allegations that attract offences under P.P.C., merely because they relate to the actions that attract an offence under Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016---In such case, proviso of S. 30 of Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, provides for creation of a JIT to facilitate related investigations and at the culmination of such investigation it is for FIA to file a challan before Special Court designated under S. 44 of Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 and for the police authorities to undertake criminal proceedings and file a challan before a Trial Court competent to take cognizance of an offence under P.P.C.

Citation Name : 2023 YLR 434 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Side Appellant : RAZA SHAH

Side Opponent : SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, PESHAWAR

Ss. 406, 420 & 489-F---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 435 & 439---Criminal breach of trust, cheating, dishonestly issuing a cheque---Petitioner had challenged the order of the first appellate court vide which his appeal for conversion of consecutive sentences into concurrent, was dismissed---Validity---Admittedly, for all the offences in four FIRs, separate challan were submitted before the court---Though three out of four cases were pending in one and the same court however, the trials were undeniably separate---Accused had pleaded his guilt, in all the four cases, before the Trial Court after framing of charge---Earlier when charge was framed he denied the allegations against and claimed trial however, in three out of four cases when he admitted the commission of offence he was not served with a notice as required under S.243 of Cr.P.C. which was mandatory---Record showed that on the basis of admission, the Trial Court without serving him with show cause notice convicted and sentenced him in all the three cases on the same date and in each case, he was awarded three years simple imprisonment with fine, which was done when the accused/petitioner was produced in custody, solely on the basis of application, when he placed himself at the mercy of Court---Undisputedly, the petitioner had not challenged his conviction before the competent forum---Further, a sentence of three years' imprisonment had to commensurate within the offences---Petitioner had been convicted for the offence under S.489-F, P.P.C., for the period of three years in each, however, in case the sentences were not to run concurrently, the petitioner would have to serve a total of 12 years if he paid the fine in each case otherwise petitioner would remain there for further period of four months (SI), such as, further incarceration of the petitioner beyond three years with one month (SI) for failure of payment of fine---Keeping in view the circumstances of the case and the powers of High Court it was the judicial obligation of the Court to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice or to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process---Accordingly, it could safely be held that discretion to make the sentences to run consecutively or concurrently would be governed by different consideration, like facts of each case, nature and character of the offences, criminal history sheet and record of the offender, his age, sex---In penal or procedural provisions relating to criminal jurisprudence, liability or punishment would be capable of narrower construction, but the construction which would tilt the interpretation favourable to the accused would be preferred over the interpretation which would adversely affect the right of a person/accused under trial---Petition was disposed of in the term that all sentences awarded to the petitioner would be deemed to run concurrently.

Citation Name : 2023 MLD 342 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Mst. MASSARRAT ABID

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 406, 417, 420, 427, 107, 206 & 34---Criminal breach of trust, cheating, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, mischief by causing loss or damage to the amount of one thousand rupees or upward, abetment, fraudulent removal or concealment of property to prevent its seizure, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Perusal of the impugned judgment revealed that after examining the entire evidence adduced by the witnesses as well as the documentary evidence, it became crystal clear that no element of fraud inducement and false representation on the part of the respondents/accused took place, which fell under S. 420, P.P.C., as the element of cheating was not manifested from the evidences of the appellant/complainant and witness---Evidence showed that neither accused executed any agreement with the appellant/ complainant nor they received the amount as beneficiary, hence no transaction took place by the respondents---Admittedly the amount as alleged had been given to the absconder accused under written agreement which was on record, hence no criminal breach of trust against the respondents/accused had been proven by the appellant/complainant---No cogent evidence was available which connected the respondents/accused with the commission of offences---Impugned judgment was speaking one and elaborated which did not suffer from any illegality, gross irregularity and infirmity---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2023 YLR 1784 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : AHMAD DIN

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2023 PCrLJ 1092 ISLAMABAD

Side Appellant : JAVAD KHAN

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 13, 14, 29 & 30---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 419 & 420---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Cyber-crime and cheating---Non-cognizable offences, investigation of---Two sets of offences---Petitioner sought quashing of FIR with the plea that offence under S. 14 of Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, was not a cognizable offence and could not be registered without seeking prior permission form a Court and those under P.P.C. could not be investigated by FIA---Validity---Charge against petitioner was that he was liable for an offence under S. 14 of Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016---In view of S. 43 of Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, the offence was non-cognizable and consequently FIA could not have taken cognizance of it without seeking prior permission from a Court of competent jurisdiction---This was not done by authorities and cognizance of offence under S. 14 of Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 and steps taken subsequent to such cognizance by FIA were devoid of legal authority---Federal Investigating Agency, as investigation agency designated under S. 29 of Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, was devoid of authority to investigate offences under P.P.C. through joinder of such offences with offences under Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016---Federal Investigating Agency could not have therefore registered a complaint under Ss. 419 & 420, P.P.C. and investigate the same---High Court declared that FIA was devoid of legal authority to registered FIR, which was liable to be quashed---Federal Investigating Agency could seek appropriate permission from Court of competent jurisdiction to take cognizance of alleged offence committed by petitioner under S. 14 of Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016---Actions attributed to petitioner constituted offences under P.P.C. also, therefore, complainant was within his right to file a complaint with police authorities so that FIR could be registered in exercise of authority under Cr.P.C.---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2023 YLR 2660 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Syed ADNAN ZAFAR

Side Opponent : State

S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468, 406 & 34---Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for the purpose of cheating, criminal breach of trust, and common intention---Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---First Information Report had been lodged with the unexplained delay of one year and no iota of evidence was available against the petitioner---Present case hinged upon the agreement, original of which was not available with the prosecution---Petitioner had denied signing / execution of agreement-in-question with the complainant, thus said fact (execution) required further enquiry which would be proved after recording evidence during the trial---No complaint of misuse of concession of bail or tampering the record had been pointed out, while petitioner was regularly appearing before High Court as well as Trial Court---Petitioner had, admittedly, not violated any condition on the basis of which his bail could be cancelled---Ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner was confirmed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2023 PCrLJ 1763 ISLAMABAD

Side Appellant : AKHUANZADA SHAHID ALI QURESHI

Side Opponent : JUDGE SPECIAL COURT (OFFENCES IN BANKS), ISLAMABAD

Ss. 51, 343 & 523---Federal Investigating Agency Act, 1974 (VIII of 1975), S. 5(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409, 420 & 489-F---Return of property---De-freezing of accounts---Criminal breach of trust and cheating and dishonoring of cheque were the allegations against petitioner/accused---Grievance of petitioner/accused was that Trial Court declined to return his mobile phone and did not unfreeze his Bank accounts---Validity---Phone was not case property and was seized on search of petitioner/accused on his arrest---Such article constituted property taken under S. 51, Cr.P.C., for the purposes of S. 523, Cr.P.C.---Investigating officer was bound under S. 523, Cr.P.C., to report seizure of mobile phone forthwith to Magistrate, who was to then pass order respecting custody and production of the phone---Inordinate retention of phone was tantamount to influencing accused to induce him to disclose conversations in his knowledge---As the Federal Investigating Agency had not gathered any conversation or message from devices other than the accused's phone purported to have originated or terminated from or at the accused's phone to corroborate Federal Investigating Agency's assertion, stance of Federal Investigating Agency was merely a fishing trip, made all the more lucrative given that phone in question was an expensive phone---Accounts did not contain more than a few hundred thousand Rupees, whereas alleged crime was in the sum of approximately Rs.250 million---High Court directed Federal Investigating Agency to return mobile phone of petitioner/accused and to unfreeze his Bank accounts---Order passed by Trial Court was set aside---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2023 SCMR 401 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : JAVED IQBAL

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 497 & 499---Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (XL of 2016), Ss. 13 & 14---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468, 471 & 109---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Electronic forgery and fraud---Bail, grant of---Condition of depositing money in Trial Court for grant of bail---Legality---High Court granted post-arrest bail to accused, subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.500,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, and further directed the accused to deposit Rs.3.5 million in the Trial Court---Held, that the High Court without any legal backing imposed the condition of depositing of Rs.3.5 million besides the surety bonds---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, the condition imposed by the High Court of depositing of Rs.3.5 million in the trial Court was set-aside and the order of granting post-arrest bail to the accused, subject to his furnishing bail bonds of Rs.500,000/- (Rupees five hundred thousand) with one surety was maintained.

Citation Name : 2023 YLR 1130 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : KHURSHEED ANWAR HABIB

Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD AMIN

Ss.406 & 420---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 200 & 439---Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984), S.10-A---Criminal breach of trust and cheating---Appreciation of evidence--- Appeal against acquittal---Complainant Bank assailed judgment passed by Trial Court whereby accused was acquitted of the charge--- Validity--- Complaint and statement recorded under S. 200, Cr.P.C. were couched in general terms so as to broadly mention that accused "approached the Bank" but did not disclose details of what transpired on relevant date in terms of identifying who was responsible for custody of documents and/or instrumental in their release---When accused approached complainant Bank for release of documents, he could not have demonstrated such urgency as to prevail upon complainant Bank's functionaries to accede to release of documents without following necessary formalities by way of securing prior payment, as required under the Contract, or at least marking a lien over the account to be debited---Run of the mill customer of complainant Bank could scarcely have had such leverage as to prevail on its functionaries to make an accommodation of that nature, and neither the period of his banking relationship nor statement of account had suggested any special circumstances due to which accused would have been able to command such privilege---Presumption of double innocence had arisen in favour of acquitted accused and interference could be warranted only when decision to that effect was found to be capricious, arbitrary and perverse---High Court declined to interfere in judgment of acquittal passed by Trial Court---Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2023 MLD 855 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Side Appellant : BILAL AHMAD

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2023 YLRN 15 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : SHER MUHAMMAD

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 420 & 468---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Cheating, forgery and misconduct---Appreciation of evidence---Signature, proof of---Presumption, impact of---Accused persons were alleged to have prepared bogus allotment letter resulting in loss to national exchequer---Validity---All Investigating Officers had every opportunity to obtain specimen signatures of accused persons for comparison but they avoided to do so---Involvement of accused persons was on the basis of presumptions only---Presumption however strong may be cannot take place of legal proof---Allotment was in favour of one accused but unless it was proved that he had knowledge or had connived with other accused or any other official of department, he could not be declared guilty merely on the reason that he was a beneficiary---Trial Court did not evaluate material by following settled principles for appreciation of evidence and had blindly followed, what prosecution claimed---High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons and they were acquitted of the charge---Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2023 YLR 1784 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : AHMAD DIN

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2023 PCrLJN 7 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Side Appellant : ZAFAR IQBAL

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 409, 420, 467, 468 & 109---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for valuable security, forged document, abetment, criminal misconduct---Striking down the right of cross-examination---Complainant and Investigating Officer were not cross-examined by defence counsel and the right of cross-examination was closed---Validity---Record reflected that the Trial Court had examined Investigating Officer in absence of counsel, whereas the statement of complainant was recorded in his presence but later on due to absence of counsel for the petitioner, the right of cross-examination was closed---Record revealed that the Trial Court had allowed the time i.e., 3 to 4 hours for appearance of counsel of accused---If statement of witnesses had been recorded in absence of counsel such evidence lost significance---Injustice was likely to occur in a case where cross-examination was not conducted by the counsel or right of cross-examination was closed---Even the cross-examination conducted by accused himself on prosecution witnesses was not considered to be substitute of cross-examination conducted by the counsel---Cross-examination of a witness was the most valuable right of an accused---Accused should not suffer due to fault of counsel for not cross-examining the complainant and Investigating Officer, who were the most important witnesses---In absence of cross-examination, the accused shall be seriously prejudiced---Petition was allowed, in circumstances and Trial Court was directed to provide opportunity to the counsel for the petitioner for cross-examination of complainant and Investigating Officer.

Citation Name : 2023 PCrLJ 1688 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD LATIF

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2023 PCrLJ 1092 ISLAMABAD

Side Appellant : JAVAD KHAN

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2023 YLR 207 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : ARIF KAMAL

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 420, 468, 471, 477-A & 34---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984), Ss. 4 & 5---Appreciation of evidence---Jurisdiction of Banking Courts---Prosecution case was that the accused being employee of Insurance Company prepared and approved fake and bogus claims in collusion and connivance with co-accused persons, which cheques in respect of such fake and bogus forged claims were paid into bank accounts and withdrawn by bogus, beneficiaries, which caused loss to the Insurance Company---In the present case, the main accused was an employee of an insurance company namely State Life Insurance Corporation (SLIC) who allegedly defrauded the insurance company by illegally authorizing claims to individuals/ organizations which were then paid into bank accounts individuals/ organizations and the same money was withdrawn by co-accused beneficiaries of the scam---None of the accused were bankers and there was no evidence on record that any person associated with any banking company played an illegal role in the fraud for instance illegally opening bank accounts in the name of beneficiaries or knowingly allowing those bank accounts to be operated by illegal beneficiaries---Loss was caused to the insurance company and not to the banks or any of its customers---Since the complaint and the illegal acts had been carried out by persons not engaged in the business of banking prima facie the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984 (Ordinance) did not apply to the accused persons unless the offences so charged could be found to have been committed, in respect of or in connection with the business of a bank so as to bring the offences so charged within the definition of a scheduled offence---High Court observed that record showed that there was no allegation that either the bank or any of its employees were a part of the scam who for instance illegally opened bogus accounts in favour of illegal beneficiaries---No banker had been sent up to stand trial for committing any illegality in respect of the case and the bank officials appeared to have acted in a bona fide manner---No loss had been caused to the bank and as such based on the particular facts and circumstances of the case, it could not see how the offences allegedly committed fell within the term in respect of or in connection with the business of a bank---Offences were clearly related to the business of an insurance company and its employees who allegedly committed the illegality through which the banks were an unwitting conduit performing there functions as they were obliged to do under the law and there own SOP's---Under said circumstances, the Special Court under the Ordinance had no jurisdiction to hear and decide such cases---Appeals were allowed and accused were acquitted by setting aside the convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court.

Citation Name : 2023 YLR 2660 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Syed ADNAN ZAFAR

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2023 MLD 255 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Side Appellant : ANYI SUNDY alias JOE

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2023 MLD 351 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD HAMMAD KHAN

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 497 & 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 468, 420, 406 & 34---Forgery for purpose of cheating, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, criminal breach of trust and common intention---Bail, grant of---Dispute of civil nature---Scope---Accused persons seeking pre-arrest bail had allegedly entered into an agreement with the complainant regarding transaction of some immovable property in consideration of certain amount through the accused seeking post-arrest bail---Although the allegation against the accused persons was of cheating and defrauding but the complainant's counsel had stated that the matter was about to patch up between the parties, however, he had raised some allegations against the accused, property dealer---Dispute between the parties was purely of civil nature, which was being given a colour of criminal proceedings---Property Dealer was not the beneficiary of the transaction, as such he had made out a case of bail in his favour---Accused persons were admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Sohaib Ali Sheikh

Search This Blog

420, 468, 471 PPC - Judgements

Section 420, 468, 471 PPC - Judgements

Comments

Post a Comment