1991 P Cr (PLP)
SAJAWAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SAJAWAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 P Cr (PLP) (SAJAWAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Riaz Anwar for Petitioner
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 420 & 489-B
Evidence did not show that accused knew or had reason to believe that currency notes given by him to shopkeepers for purchasing articles were forged
Unless the accused knew the currency notes to be forged he could not be said to have deceitfully induced the shopkeepers to deliver the articles to him and ingredients of S.420, P.P.C., therefore, did not stand proved
Prosecution had thus not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt
Accused was acquitted in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
(i) Under section 420, P.P.C. One year's R.I. (ii) Under section 489-B, P.P.C Four years' R.I. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. The appeal filed by him against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Multan on 29-6-1983. Hence this revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the act of the petitioner does not amount to cheating within the meaning of section 415, P.P.C., therefore, he could not have been convicted under section 420, P.P.C. As for his conviction under section 489-B, P.P.C., learned counsel submitted that there was/is nothing in evidence to show that the petitioner knew or had reason to believe the currency notes used by him were forged. The learned counsel for the State has not been able to controvert him.
3. I have considered the matter carefully. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. The prosecution case is that the petitioner purchased articles from Intizar Ali Shah P.W.1 and Abdul Majid P.W. shopkeepers on 9-11-1978. Since the notes appeared to be forged and fake, so the aforesaid shopkeepers apprehended and handed him over to the police alongwith the currency notes. There is nothing in evidence that the petitioner knew or had reason to believe that the currency notes were forged. Furthermore, the ingredients of section 420, P.P.C. do not stand proved against the petitioner, inasmuch as unless they knew the currency notes to be forged it cannot be said that they had deceitfully induced the shopkeepers to deliver the articles to him. For these reasons I am of the view that prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
4. For what has been said above, the revision is accepted and the petitioner is acquitted of the charges. He is on bail. He stands discharged of the hail bond. N.H.Q./S-806/L Revision petition accepted.