1989 P Cr (PLP)
MERAJUDDIN AND MUHAMMAD ASHRAF, Directors, Messrs Pak. Skyland (Pvt.) Ltd.‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑ Respondent
| Citation | 1989 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Allahdino G. Memon, J |
| Parties | MERAJUDDIN AND MUHAMMAD ASHRAF, Directors, Messrs Pak. Skyland (Pvt.) Ltd.‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑ Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Allahdino G. Memon, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (MERAJUDDIN AND MUHAMMAD ASHRAF, Directors, Messrs Pak. Skyland (Pvt.) Ltd.‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑ Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 406 & 420‑‑Breach of trust by accused, Director of a company, entrusted with huge amount of more than rupees one crore and seventy lacs‑‑Mere fact that liquidation proceedings had been initiated by three of the investors of Company, held, would not absolve accused from criminal liability‑‑Bail declined to accused. K.M. Nadeem for Applicant. M.A.I. Qarni for the State. Muhammad Ismail Baloch for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
K.M. Nadeem for Applicant. M.A.I. Qarni for the State. Muhammad Ismail Baloch for the Complainant. The applicant is facing trial under section 406/420, P.P.C. before the A.C.M., C.I.A., Centre, Karachi, on the allegation that he had committed breach of trust in respect of more than rupees one crore and seventy lacs. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the amount in question was invested by different persons and they were paid benefits by the applicant's firm for one year. That the applicant has already refunded Rs.30,000 to the complainant. He has further contended that liquidation proceedings by three of the investors have been initiated in this Court, and therefore, it was not a case of criminal liability. The learned counsel for the State. has opposed the grant of bail, on the ground that the applicant and his associates had committed breach of trust in respect of more than rupees one crore and seventy lacs and the persons who had paid the amount have been ruined. That the co‑accused are already absconding, and there was every possibility that the applicant might abscond if he was released on bail. He has further contended that offence will fall under section 409, P.P.C. which was punishable for imprisonment for life. The learned counsel for the complainant has adopted the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the State. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel. Mr. K.M. Nadeem has not denied the allegation that the applicant and his partners were entrusted with more than rupees one crore and seventy lacs. Admittedly the co -accused are still absconding. Mere fact that liquidation proceedings have been initiated by three of the investors will not absolve the applicant from the criminal liability. There are as many as 186 complaints against the applicant and the co -accused. I am, therefore, of the considered view that there is every possibility that the applicant might abscond if he is released on bail. In view‑ of the above discussion I am of the considered view that the applicant is not entitled to bail and the application is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./M‑637/K Application dismissed.