Syed SIRAJ HASSAN vs MUHAMMAD TAHIR and others
This Criminal Acquittal Appeal arises from a judgment passed by the appellate court which maintained the conviction of one accused while acquitting the respondents in a case involving charges under sections 406, 420, 468, and 471/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the respondents, including a bank manager accused of facilitating the encashment of a crossed cheque into a personal account, possessed the requisite mens rea for criminal breach of trust, cheating, or forgery. The court held that there was no evidence of dishonest misappropriation or mens rea on the part of the bank manager, whose actions at most amounted to departmental negligence rather than criminal culpability. The key principle laid down is that criminal liability under penal statutes requires proof of mens rea and dishonest intention, and mere negligence or procedural lapse without criminal intent does not sustain a conviction for offences involving fraud or misappropriation.
- Whether a bank manager facilitating the encashment of a cheque into a personal account without dishonest intention can be held criminally liable for fraud or misappropriation?
- Does mere departmental negligence satisfy the requirement of mens rea for criminal offences under the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Under what circumstances can an appellate court's judgment acquitting a respondent be interfered with in a criminal acquittal appeal?
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.-This Criminal Acquittal Appeal arises from Judgment dated 29-8-2009 passed by the IIlrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi Central in Criminal Appeal No, 5 of 2008 whereby the learned Appellate Court, maintained the conviction by reducing the sentence to the extent of accused Syed Kamran Ali for the offences under sections 406, 420, 468 and 471/34, P.P.C, and acquitted the respondents.
2. ' Briefly, the complainant filed a direct Complaint bearing No, 1072 of 2007 alleging therein that accused Syed Raees Ahmed Syed Kamran Ali and Muhammad Tahir 'Ansari' are his close relatives.
3. It was asserted that the complainant and accused Syed Raees Ahmed and Syed Kamran Ali were carrying business in partnership in the name and style of Messrs Sharp Printers and Messrs International Art Printers. Their partnership dissolved amicably on 26-8-1995 and, thereafter, the complainant became sole proprietor of both the firms. It was alleged that after dissolution of firm, Syed Kamran Ali received one crossed Cheque No,90465544, dated 2-9-2005 amounting to Rs.
4. 11,033 in the International Art Printers and deposited the same in his personal account and in connivance with the accused Tahir Ali, who was the Bank Manager, encashed the same into his personal account. After taking cognizance charge was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty. The complainant examined himself, produced several documents and examined witnesses, namely, Saeed Ahmed and Abdul Qudoos. The accused persons were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C, and they produced their witnesses, nauiely, Syed Salman and Jawaid Shoukat. Thereafter, Shamsul Hassan Khan, the then Bank Manager was called. All accused persons initially were acquitted but in Revision this Court remanded the case and the trial Court after reframing the point and re-assessing the evidence convicted all accused persons and on appeal learned Appellate Court through impugned Judgment acquitted the present respondents and maintained the conviction, but reduced sentence of third accused viz. Syed Kamran Ali.
5. ' Learned counsel for the appellant lias straightaway conceded that the appellant has no case whatsoever against Syed Raees Ahmed and, therefore, he does not press this appeal to the extent of respondent No,
2. The role of respondent No, 1, per learned counsel, is only that he facilitated Syed Kamran Ali to encash cheque in the name of International Art Printers in his personal account opened by the Manager especially for the purposes of encashment of cheque.
6. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. ' The record reflects that an account in the name of Syed Kamran Ali was already in existence since 30-6-1994 and the respondent No, 1 in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C, has also stated that he did not scrutinize the cheque due to close relation between the parties. The complainant in his deposition regarding encashment of cheque has made the following assertion against the Respondent No,l:- "which was wrongly got encashed by accused Kamran Ali Aamir with the help of his brother namely Tahir Ansari, who was Branch Manager of said Branch at that time".
8. After scrutiny of the evidence available on record there appears to be no mens rea on the part of respondent No,l nor any allegation that he has dishonestly misappropriated any property or converted the same to his own use. Even according to the complainant's own statement respondent No, 2 could have been held at the most for negligence departmentally but was not liable for the offence with which he was charged.
9. ' In the circumstances, I am of the view that no interference with the judgment of the Appellate Court acquitting the to produce marginal witnesses of the sale respondent No,l is required. The appeal deed even though they were aware of the consequently is dismissed.