Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Revision Petition No. 43 of 1951, decided on 7th May, 1951, under section 439, Criminal Procedure Code, for revision of order of Sessions Judge, Shahpur at Sargodha, dated the 8th January 1951, affirming that of Special Magistrate, at Sargodha, dated the 18th November 1950, convicting the petitioner.
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 105, 406‑Articles hired Mere failure to return without evidence of mens rea----Whether amounts to criminal breach of trust.
The mere failure to return the article hired does not prove dishonesty, nor does the mere failure to deliver possession of the property to the lessor on the expiry of the lease amount to criminal breach of trust. There was no evidence in this case to show that the lessor or the new allottee ever demanded the return of the engine from the petitioner or that the petitioner ever de nied possession of the, engine or that he refused to return it.
Retention of the engine in dispute by, the petitioner's firm for a few months after the termination of their lease, i.e., from 1st October, 1948 to 24th January, 1949, in the absence of any proof of mense rea, does not amount to criminal breach of trust.
33 Cr.L.J 866; A.I.R. 1930 Oud 321 ; 38 Cr.L. J 491;27 Cr.L. J. 331 ref
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 405‑Goods entrusted to firm‑Criminal breach of trust‑Whether Manager of firm criminally liable.
A person who is a manager of a firm cannot be held criminally liable for any breach of trust if the entrustment of goods was made to the firm and not to him personally.
A. I. R. 1930 Rang. 332 rel.
Ferose‑ud‑Din Ahmad, for Petitioner.
S. A. Mahmud, Assistant to Advocate‑General for Respondent.
.‑Khan Sahib Chaudhri Abdul Karim was convicted by Mr. Muhammad Ishaq, Magistrate First Class, Sargodha, on a charge under section 406 Pakistan Penal Code, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1000 or, in default of payment, to simple imprisonment for three months. His appeal to the Court of Session was dismissed on 8th January, 1951, and he has applied for revision to this Court.
The facts of the case are
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer