1991 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSAF — 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) (MUHAMMAD YOUSAF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Altaf Ibrahim for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 406 & 420
Accused for the same allegation had been charged under S.420, P.P.C. and under S.406, P.P.C. and was not charged in the alternative
Since offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust were altogether different, accused could either be guilty of cheating or of criminal breach of trust and could not be guilty of both the offences on the same facts
Trial of accused under Ss.406 & 420, P.P.C. was thus not only bad in law but his conviction under both these sections was also illegal and the same was consequently set aside
Case was, however, not sent back for re-trial as accused had suffered agony of protracted trial and had also remained in jail for some months.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Yousaf petitioner was tried by Magistrate Section 30, Chichawatni under sections 406 and 420, P.P.C. on the charge of obtaining money from Muhammad Ibrahim complainant on the pretext of sending him to Saudi Arabia. On the conclusion of the trial he was convicted under section 406/420, P.P.C. and sentenced as under:- (i) Under section 406, P.P.C. One year's R.I. (ii) Under section 420, P.P.C. One year's R.I. and a fine of Rs.5,000, in default one year's R.I. Feeling aggrieved thereby he filed appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal on 15-8-1981. Hence this revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the conviction of the petitioner under sections 406 and 420, P.P.C. on the same facts is illegal. Learned counsel for the State has not been able to controvert it.
3. I have considered the matter carefully. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that the petitioner was not charged in the alternative. For the same allegation he was charged under section 420, P.P.C. and under section 406, P.P.C. The offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust arc altogether different. So, the petitioner can either be guilty of cheating or of criminal breach of trust. In any case he could not be guilty of both the offences on the same facts. For these reasons I am convinced that not only the trial of the petitioner under sections 406 and 420, P.P.C. was bad in law but his conviction under both these sections was also illegal. The occurrence took place ten years back and the petitioner has suffered the agony of protracted trial. He remained in jail for some months. So, I do not feel inclined to send the case back for retrial. The revision is disposed of accordingly. N.H.Q./M-2463/L Order accordingly.