MUHAMMAD NASIR vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Nasir, in relation to FIR No. 33/2012 registered under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for criminal breach of trust. The core legal question was whether the essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust, specifically the element of entrustment, were satisfied against the petitioner regarding the cattle in question. The court examined the FIR and the record, noting that the cattle were entrusted to another individual, Muhammad Ishfaq, and not the petitioner. Furthermore, the Deputy Prosecutor General and the Investigating Officer admitted in court that no entrustment of the property had been made to the petitioner. Consequently, the court held that the charge of criminal breach of trust could not be sustained against the petitioner. The court confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail, establishing the principle that for an offense under Section 405 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, the prosecution must strictly prove the initial entrustment of property to the accused, without which the offense is not made out.
- Is entrustment of property a mandatory ingredient to establish the offense of criminal breach of trust under Section 405 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a person be held liable for criminal breach of trust if the property in question was never entrusted to them?
- Does the admission by the prosecution that no entrustment occurred entitle an accused to confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 550, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 405, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Petitioner Muhammad Nasir has sought concession of pre arrest bail in case FIR No, 33/2012 dated 30.1.2012 registered under Section 406, PPC at Police Station City Liaqatpur District Rahim Yar Khan.
2. According to the FIR, the police took into possession four buffaloes, three cows and two calves under Section 550, Cr.P.C. vide Rapt.No, 15 dated 18.12.2011 and were given in the temporary custody of Muhammad Ishfaq son of Hafiz Rukan Din at the behest and in the presence of Adil, Muhammad Asghar, Muhammad Nasir, Muhammad Sharif and Iftikhar Ahmad. Later on, Muhammad Ishfaq and Muhammad Nasir failed to produce the said cattle before the police, who was booked under Section 406, PPC for the criminal breach of trust.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the case against the petitioner is false and concocted one; that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case; that the cattle were not entrusted to the petitioner as such, the question of criminal breach of trust does not arise at all.
4. During the course of arguments, learned DPG and Rab Nawaz SI have admitted that no entrustment of cattle was made to the present petitioner while the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
6. In order to prove the allegation of criminal breach of trust, the prosecution must prove not only entrustment but also that the accused misappropriated the same property. The criminal breach of trust has been defined Under Section 405, PPC, which reads as under: "Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishoestly use or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust". "
7. The bare perusal of FIR reveals that the cattle in question were given to Muhammad Ishfaq son of Hafiz Rukan Din for temporary custody by the police and were not entrusted to the present petitioner at all, so the question of criminal breach of trust by the present petitioner does not arise at all. Learned DPG as well as Rab Nawaz SI/I.O., present in the Court, has admitted that no entrustment of cattle was made to the present petitioner, therefore, the question of misappropriation does not arise at all.
In view of above, the petition in hand is allowed and ad interim pre arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 16.3.2012 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.