The charges against the accused (the company's chief executive) and the co-accused (company supervisor) were recalled, in connection with the section 498 Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), the pre-arrest arrest warrant for the criminal violation of section 406 trust. The luggage was removed. The cases related to the warehouse of the accused company were that the present case was lodged with unclean motives and illegal motives. The equipment was removed by the company's directors with the involvement of the security guard. It was not possible to remove such a large quantity of goods without the knowledge of the directors of the company. That the accused was previously an offender. The accused had told the bank about the removal of the goods, but the bank authorities prevented him from filing a case, and under this section 406, the PPC provisions were not made against the accused because the goods were not handed over to him. had gone. The co-accused were the same as the accused, but they also claimed that they used to go to the warehouse every fortnight (15) as a supervisor to ascertain whether the security guard was on duty. Or not, and that its directors had joined hands with the company and the bank officials and removed the goods from the warehouse The property defendant and co-accused were named in the FIR, according to the agreement between the bank and the company. It was the responsibility of the accused and the co-accused to take care of the goods entrusted to them in the questions Rack was placed in police custody, when he was removed from the warehouse Getty Investigation Officer was fully involved in this case and the accused and co-accused from them
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
