Case Details

Citation(s)
2023 SLG 547 2023 SLD 547 2023 CLD 352
Sindh High Court
Criminal Revision Application No. 86 of 2015, decided on 13th August, 2021. Dates of hearing: 8th, 22nd April and 6th May, 2021.
AHMED ALI M. SHAIKH, C.J. AND YOUSUF ALI SAYEED, J
Shaukat Hayat for Apllicant. Khaleeque Ahmed for
Respondent No. 1. Ch. Muhammad Waseem, Assistant Attorney General for
Respondent No. 2.

KHURSHEED ANWAR HABIB-----Applicant

VERSUS

MUHAMMAD AMIN and another-----Respondents

Law: Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984

Section: 10-A

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 200,439

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 406,420

Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984)--- ----S. 10-A---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 200, 439---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 406, 420---Criminal breach of trust and cheating---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Complainant Bank assailed 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 Banks 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 of acquittal passed by Trial Court---Revision was dismissed in circumstances. State v. Abdul Khaliq PLD 2011 SC 554 rel. ORDER YOUSUF ALI SAYEED, J.---The Applicant, in his capacity as the authorized representative of Bank Alfalah Limited (the Bank), has invoked the Revisional jurisdiction of this Court so as to impugn the Judgment rendered by the Special Court (Offences in Banks) Sindh, at Karachi on 20.02.2015 in Case No. 32 of 2006, whereby the Criminal Direct Complaint preferred on behalf of the Bank against the Respondent No.1 under sections 420 and 406,…
🔒
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