MANAK ALI vs The STATE
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a criminal conviction for cheating. The petitioner allegedly induced the complainant to pay Rs. 4,000 under the false promise that he could secure the allotment of land under the Horse Breeding Scheme through an appeal pending before the Additional Commissioner, Multan. After the appeal was dismissed, the petitioner failed to return the full amount, refunding only Rs. 500. The petitioner was subsequently convicted under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by a Magistrate, receiving a sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment. This conviction was upheld by both the Sessions Judge in appeal and the High Court in criminal revision. The Supreme Court considered the petition for special leave to appeal against the High Court's order. The core legal issue concerns whether the facts established at trial constitute the offense of cheating under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court, upon review, found no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts, thereby maintaining the conviction and sentence.
- Does the failure to fulfill a promise to secure a favorable administrative order constitute the offense of cheating under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts subject to interference by the Supreme Court in a petition for special leave to appeal?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, in Criminal Revision No. 368 of 1970, dated the 7th April 1970. By this order the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Shahmand father of Dilawar complainant, had applied for the allotment of land under the Horse Breeding Scheme. His applica--tion was rejected. He filed an appeal against this order in the Court of Additional Commissioner, Multan. The prosecution case is that the petitioner approached Shahmand and induced him to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000 on the promise that the impugned order would be set aside and the land will be allotted to him. The matter was settled at Rs. 3,500 in the presence of Amir P. W. 2, Fazal P. W. 4 and Noor Muhammad P, W. 5 and the petitioner was given this amount in the presence of these persons. It is alleged that the appeal filed by Shahmand was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Multan. Thereupon, the comp--lainant demanded the money from the petitioner who returned Rs. 500 to him in the presence of Arnir and Shahabala P.
3. Ws. But failed to pay the balance of the amount. The petitioner was prosecuted under section 420, P. P. C. And Mr. Ghulam Ahmad Khan, Magistrate 1st Class, Sahiwal convicted and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment on the 2nd June 1969. The appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, on the 2nd April 1970. His revision as stated above was dismissed by the High Court on the 7th April 1970. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.