| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1973 SLG 250 1973 SLD 250 1973 PLD 619 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 1969, decided on 5th July 1973. dates of hearing: 23rd May and 5th July 1973. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the former High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 9th July 1968, In Criminal Appeal No. 504 of 1964).
MUHAMMAD YAQOOB ALI, ACTG. C.J., WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD AND MUHAMMAD GUL, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 1969, decided on 5th July 1973. dates of hearing: 23rd May and 5th July 1973. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the former High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 9th July 1968, In Criminal Appeal No. 504 of 1964).
MUHAMMAD YAQOOB ALI, ACTG. C.J., WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD AND MUHAMMAD GUL, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Mst. THARI
VS
MOHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 415, 419 & 109- Cheating, offence of-Deception essential ingredient-Deception not practised directly upon person sustaining harm or damage--Conviction under S. 419/109 not sustainable-Accused in collusion with a person who personated as tree owner of land before Revenue Officer and causing him to sanction mutation-Accused, held, could not be convicted for "abetment of cheating by personation"- Defect in definition of "cheating" calls for modification-Copy of sent to Federal Government for information and necessary, remedial legislation. Two persons were convicted for "abetment of cheating by personation", the deception was alleged to have been practised by them in collusion with a person who personated as the true owner of land (owned in fact by T) before the Revenue Officer and caused him to sanction mutation in favour of one of accused. T the true owner denied any oral gift in favour of accused. Held: On the analysis of section 415, P. P. C. which defines "cheating" the conviction of the accused could not be sustained. The definition of "cheating" in section 415, P. P. C. contains two distinct parts, with the opening words covering both the parts and therefore applying to the whole section. In other words, deception is an essential element in the offence of cheating whether the case falls under the first or the second part. Then comes the first part which is confined to cases Involving transfer or retention of property by deception. The second part on the other hand embraces cases in which no transfer or retention of property is involved, but in such cases the following two conditions must be established, namely. (a) a deceiving of a person with the Intention and object that he shall do an act which he would not have done bad he not been so deceived; and (b) that the act so caused to be done is one which causes or is likely to cause harm to the deceived person, In body, mind, reputation or property. The instant case did not involve any deception directly on the owner of the land: the deception was practised aliunde, in collusion with the person who personated the true owner before the Revenue Officer causing hint to…
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