Section 406 and 420 Criminal Code of Conduct (V9 1898), Section 417 (2A), the alleged benefit of the suspect in the appeal against criminal breach of trust, fraud and dishonesty of assets, allegedly this dishonesty. And receive the money lodged against them by a promise to pay a monthly profit against a village (victims), under trial 420, PPC but against their conviction. The first appellate court accepted them, giving them the benefit of the doubt. Since there were fifteen utilities mentioned in the FIR from which the accused allegedly recovered different amounts, the complainant did not allege that in their presence, the accused had paid the money from different countries through the accused. No date, time and place of extortion was recovered. The complaint was not given in the FJR nor in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the complainant mentioned in the FL alleging that he was collecting money from his wife but he failed to present his wife as a witness. There were contradictions between the statements of the victims, their government officials acknowledged during the investigation and the FIR complainant's contents that the suspect had participated as a result of mediation between the parties. In connection with the alleged amount of money which he conveyed to the victims, the prosecution could not present a credible or credible account of the trust in connection with the payment of the alleged money and arbitration was held between the parties. For the first time, the Court of Appeal has commended the prosecution's contradictions and contradictions in the evidence of litigation
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
