| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 4858 = 2026 SLD 4858 = 2025 PLJ 797 |
Lahore High Court
Crl. Misc. No. 43725-B of 2025
Presented By: Tanveer Ahmad Sheikh, J.
Mr. Muhammad Usama Khaliq and Mr. Awais Bawar, Advocates for Petitioner. Malik Ayaz Mehmood Khan, Advocate for Complainant. Rana Tasawar Ali, Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab for State. Date of hearing: 18.8.2025.
Crl. Misc. No. 43725-B of 2025
Presented By: Tanveer Ahmad Sheikh, J.
Mr. Muhammad Usama Khaliq and Mr. Awais Bawar, Advocates for Petitioner. Malik Ayaz Mehmood Khan, Advocate for Complainant. Rana Tasawar Ali, Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab for State. Date of hearing: 18.8.2025.
TARIQ REHMAN CHOHAN--Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE and another--Respondents
Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section: 497
Law: Pakistan Penal Code (PPC),1860
Section: 489-F , 405
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----S. 405--Criminal breach of trust-- When amount is received by a person into his bank account mistakenly or due to some error in system of bank, normally it shall not be considered to be an entrustment within meaning of Section 405 of, PPC--Entrustment requires a deliberate act of placing confidence in another person to hold or use property for a specific purpose, which then must be followed by misappropriation or conversion by that person--Normally such like episode shall not fulfill essential ingredients of Section 405 of, PPC because amount is not given by a person for safe keeping and specific fiduciary purpose, unless there is further evidence of dishonest intention to misappropriate funds received by mistake. [Pp. 800 & 801] A Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----S. 405--Words and phrases “in any manner”--Criminal breach of trust-- The words “in any manner” used in Section 405 of, PPC is of wider import--It extends to and covers all kinds of entrustment--It may be expressed or implied--When amount/fund came into account of petitioner, he acquired control and domain over property and no other person could have access thereto--Said fact was carrying with it implication that bank shall continue to be its owner and he was legally as well as morally bound to return same to its owner/bank, but petitioner put funds/amount to his own use dishonestly--He caused wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to bank. …