Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1006 of 1983, decided on 31^st January, 1984.

---S.417(2)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 406--Leave to appeal against acquittal--Case involving dispute of civil nature--Accused not committing offence of criminal misappropriation but case against him brought to bring pressure on him to accede to complainant's demand--Application for special leave to appeal against acquittal of accused dismissed.--(Appeal against acquittal).

Muhammad Ashraf Kazi for Applicants.

--This application under section 417(2) of Cr.P.C. for special leave to appeal is made on the following circumstances:--

The applicant filed a complaint under section 406 P.P.C against respondent No. 1 in the Court of A.C.M. 15, South Karachi The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint holding that the applicant has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the respondent under section 245, Cr.P.C.

The applicant's case was that respondent No.2 approached him at Karachi and induced him to purchase from him under contract dated 19th August, 1981 Fur Skins as detailed therein for the total cost of Rs. 1,50,819, which amount be remitted to the accused/ respondent through his Bank.

It may be useful if the contract is reproduced hereinbelow:--

"Kar: 19th August, 1981 On 20th August or 22nd August, 1981. Delivery in Karachi/After Inspection for despatch by Muhammad Salim Akhtar in Multan.

Pursuant to the contract the applicant remitted the amount of Rs.1,50,819 through U.B.L., Multan. The said amount was received by the respondent No.1 from the Bank but according to the applicant the respondent No. 1 failed to send the goods and/or to get the goods first inspected through applicant's man Salim Akhtar at Multan. The respondent No. 1 according to the applicant, failed to perform his part of promise by getting the goods inspected through applicant's man and/or despatch the same to Karachi after due inspection.

We have gone through the evidence and we find that Bashir Ahmad (P.W.) in his deposition has stated that the accused had sent the goods in his self name from Multan through Hashim and Company, Bombay Bazar, Karachi and no T.T. was sent to him by the accused. He has further stated that the accused had given a letter to Hashim and Company that the goods be delivered to Abdul Shakoor Rana and his letter was brought to him by Abdul Shakoor Rana and he produced the said letter. He further stated that he refused to take delivery of the goods as the goods were to be received after inspection in Multan. All this has been deposed by applicant's own witness during his examination-in-chief. This wintess admitted that he had received an intimation from United Bank Limited alongwith R.R, that the goods had reached Karachi and that he should take the delivery of the same but he refused to do so because the respondent had not got the goods inspected first from them as promised. He further admitted that he had not asked the Bank for inspection of the goods.

In the circumstances briefly referred above we are of the opinion that this case involved disputes of civil nature and that the learned trial Court rightly acquitted the accused/ respondent No.1, holding that he had not committed any offence of criminal misappropriation and that the criminal case was brought against the said respondent /accused to bring pressure on him to accede to the complainant's demands.

For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss this application.

M.Y.H. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.