Case Details

Citation(s)
2013 SLG 2426 2013 SLD 2426 2013 YLR 548
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 477 in CriminalAppeal No. 553 of 2011, decided on 24th July, 2012
DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN AND MRS. IRSHAD QAISER, JJ
Malik Haroon Iqbal for Appellant. Javid Ali for the State. Bilal Ahmad for
Respondent No. 2

AMJID ALI and anothersVsThe STATE and another

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 420---Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984), S.9---Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property---Burden of proof---Prosecution was obliged to prove a prima facie reasonable case to the satisfaction of the court---If the prosecution would succeed in proving prima facie case, then the burden would shift to the accused---Such burden could be discharged by accused by producing evidence, oral and documentary by examining witnesses or through his statement recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C.---Section 9 of Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984 imposed specific burden on accused to prove that the offence had not been committed by him. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 420---Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984), S.10---Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property---Application for suspension of sentence---Appreciation of evidence---Three Managers of Banks concerned, were the witnesses of the record; they through oral as well as documentary evidence had given the true picture of the occurrence and had unanimously stated that though the transaction in question had appeared in the Head Office, but no one had actually/physically made any such transaction from or through their branches; and the Bank had been subjected to fraud---All the Bank Managers were subjected to lengthy and searching cross-examination, but no question was asked from them with regard to huge fraudulent remittance from their respective branches to account maintained by accused---By putting certain suggestions, it was admitted that said transaction was in fact fictitious transaction; and had neither taken place physically nor was transacted by their branches---Accused had not denied the credit of said heavy amount in his account---Burden of proof was on the accused to prove that the entries were genuine, but he failed to produce any evidence to prove that the amount credited in his account was genuine and had never been credited in his account through fraud and forgery---Accused could produce some evidence to show that the transaction in question was…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492