ABDUL QAYYAM vs THE STATE AND ANOTHER
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the Peshawar High Court dismissing his revision petition and maintaining his conviction and sentence of three months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for criminal breach of trust. The core legal questions involved the establishment of misappropriation regarding entrusted ornaments and the raising of the issue of territorial jurisdiction for the first time before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the entrustment of ornaments and the petitioner's refusal to return them or pay their price sufficiently proved misappropriation, and declined to permit the petitioner to raise the objection to territorial jurisdiction for the first time before the apex court since no such objection was taken at any previous stage of the proceedings. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence.
- Whether refusal to return entrusted ornaments or pay their price constitutes criminal misappropriation under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can an objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J. --The petitioner has been aggrieved by an order of a learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court dismissing the petitioner's revision petition and maintaining his conviction and sentence of 3 months' rigorous imprisonment under section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
2. The trying Magistrate, the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Judge of the High Court, they all found that there was evidence in support of the petitioner's conviction.
3. The entrustment of the ornaments was proved and it has not been disputed before us. It has also been proved that the petitioner refused to pay their price or return the ornaments. In these circumstances there is no substance in the contention that there was no misappropriation.
4. The petitioner next sought to question the territorial jurisdiction, of the Magistrate to try the, case.
5. No objection to jurisdiction having been taken at any previous stage of the case we do not permit him to raise the question before us for the first time.
6. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- DR. SAJJAD AHMAD AND Another vs DR. MUHAMMAD BASHIR AND 10 Other 1979 PLD Lahore 304