| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1965 SLG 4618 = 1965 SLD 4618 = 1965 PLD 155 |
WEST PAKISTAN, KARACHI
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 294 of 1961, decided on 18th May 1964.
Presented By: A. S. Faruqui and Feroze Nana Ghulamally, JJ
M. Haleem, Assistant A.-G. for the State. Azizullah K. Shaikh for
Respondent.
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 294 of 1961, decided on 18th May 1964.
Presented By: A. S. Faruqui and Feroze Nana Ghulamally, JJ
M. Haleem, Assistant A.-G. for the State. Azizullah K. Shaikh for
Respondent.
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE-GENERAL, WEST PAKISTAN AND Ex officio PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, KARACHI-Appellants
VERSUS
TAHIR BEG-Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 409,466,477
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----S. 409-Criminal breach of trust-Prosecution not required necessarily to prove actual manner of misappropriation as well. For sustaining a charge of criminal breach of trust it is not necessary that misappropriation in fact must be proved. If in the circumstances of the case or by long lapse of time, the prosecution is not able to trace the misappropriated property or to produce evidence of the manner in which the misappropriation or conversion in fact took place, .it cannot be said that the prosecution must fail even if there is other evidence which leads to the conclusion that the property which was entrusted to the accused or over which he had domain and which was found missing, was misappropriated by him. State v. Abu Raza P L D 1959 S C (Pak.) 309 rel. Harakrishna Mahatab v. Emperor 31 Cr. L J 249 distinguished. Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----Ss. 409, 466 & 477-A-Charge under Ss. 466 & 477-A-Sustainable even if accused be found not guilty of criminal breach of trust. Dates of hearing: 1st, 5th and 6th May 1964. JUD45MENT FARUQUI, J.----This is an acquittal appeal by the State. The accused Tahir Beg was tried by the Special Judge, Sukkur Mr. Azizullah M. Memon for offences under sections 409, 466, 468 and 477-A, P. P. C., and was acquitted by him by his judgment dated 31st January 1961 in Corruption Case No. 37 of 1960. The State filed an appeal against this acquittal and this was heard and disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by their order dated 11-4-62. Their Lordships while holding in the concluding para of the judgment that the learned Special Judge had paid no proper attention to the evidence on record ordered the retrial of the case and directed the Special Judge to consider the evidence against the accused on its merits. Against this order the accused preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court which appeal was accepted. The order of retrial was set aside and this appeal was sent back to his Court for disposal according to law. This judgment was delivered in Criminal Appeal No. K-2/62 on 8th April 1963. That is how this appeal has now come before us. The…