P L D 1952 Dacca 354 (PLP)
ABDUS SALAM CHOUDHURY and others‑Petitioners Versus THE CROWN‑Opposite‑Party
| Citation | P L D 1952 Dacca 354 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Ispahani and Ibrahim, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUS SALAM CHOUDHURY and others‑Petitioners Versus THE CROWN‑Opposite‑Party |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1952 Dacca 354 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1952 Dacca 354 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Ispahani and Ibrahim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1952 Dacca 354 (PLP) (ABDUS SALAM CHOUDHURY and others‑Petitioners Versus THE CROWN‑Opposite‑Party). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- D. C. Roy for Petitioner in No. 291 of 1951.
- Syed Modaris Ali, for Petitioner in No. 315 of 1951.
- A. Salam Khan for Petitioner in No. 290 of 1951.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (IJ of 1898), S. 222 (2) ‑Three persons charged together with defalcation of an aggregate amount during a period less than a year‑Charge defective -Object of framing a charge. Section 222 (2) cannot be applied to amalgamate all the different offences of criminal breach of trust committed by different accused into a single charge of defalcation for the aggregate sum. Assuming that two more persons can be charged under section 222 (2) for misappropriation of an aggregate sum of money, it is necessary that the amount, should be composed of items jointly defalcated by them. If one person commits criminal breach of trust in respect of a certain amount and another commits criminal breach of trust in respect of another amount during a period of one year, they cannot both be charged for the aggregate amount under section 222 (2) of the Code. Each must be charged separately for the amount defalcated by him. Of course they can be tried in the same trial if permissible under section 239 but the charges must be separate. The object of framing a charge in a criminal trial being to give notice to the accused as to what the prosecution case is, in order to enable him to defend himself, it seems essential that in framing a charge for criminal breach of trust, the mode in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, should be specified in the charge. Girwar Narain v. Emperor 13 Cr. L J 506 ; K. Meeriah v. Emperor 32 Cr. L J 930 ; Appadurai Ayyar 17 Cr. L J 30 and Baburao Tatyrao v. Emperor, 38 Cr. L J 9 ref. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 405‑Breach of trust by several persons‑All must be proved to have been entrusted with money. Entrustment is an essential ingredient of the offences of criminal breach of trust and a man cannot be guilty of this offence unless he is entrusted with the amount. If section 34 is to be applied to punish several persons for the offence of criminal breach of trust, it is necessary to establish that all of them were entrusted with the amount. In the absence of entrustment a person may be guilty of abetment but cannot be charged and punished as a principal offender by the applica tion of section 34, for this section cannot create entrustment where there is none. No one for the Crown.