Case Details

Citation(s)
2025 SLG 624 2025 SLD 624 = 2025 MLD 245
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 909 of 2012, decided on 15th October, 2024.
Before Farooq Haider, J
Osama Zaman for and with the appellants (appellants have been identified by their counsel). Rana Muhammad Shafique, Deputy Prosecutor General along with Muhammad Younas, A.S.I. for the State. Nemo. for the Complainant.

MUHAMMAD ARIF ZAMAN and another---Appellants

VERSUS

The STATE and another---Respondents

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: XLV,420,468,471

Law: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947

Section: II,5

(a)    Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------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.(b)    Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------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…
🔒
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