ABDUR REHMAN vs The STATE
This matter arises from a criminal petition filed by the petitioner, a Lambardar, challenging his conviction under sections 419, 420 read with 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner's identification of an impostor during mutation proceedings, which resulted in the purchaser being deceived into buying property, constituted an innocent act or criminal culpability. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the petitioner's identification of the impostor were supported by evidence, specifically the testimony of the purchaser. The Court concluded that the identification was not innocent and that it directly deceived the purchaser. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentences of rigorous imprisonment.
- Does the identification of an impostor before a Patwari during mutation proceedings amount to cheating under the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding criminal identification warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Is a Lambardar liable for abetment and cheating when identifying a fraudulent vendor to a purchaser?
- Section 419, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 114, Pakistan Penal Code
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-The petitioner is a Lambardar and he has been convicted under sections 419, 420 read with 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to one and two years' rigorous imprisonment, respectively, for the two offences.
2. The allegations against him are that he identified the alleged vendor as Kaura before the Patwari in the mutation proceedings and as a result of this identification the mutation was recorded and the purchaser was deceived into purchasing the property from the impostor. There is the evidence of the purchaser, P. W. 12 Ghulam Muhammad in support of the allegation. All the Court have found that the petitioner did in fact identify the impostor.
3. We are unable to accept the contention that the petitioner's identification was an innocent one and it did not in any way deceive the purchaser.
4. We do not think it is a fit case for our interference. The petition is accordingly dismissed.