MUHAMMAD YOUNUS AND 3 Others vs Sardar BAQIR ALI AND Another
This appeal by special leave was directed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against the appellants under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings could be maintained against all appellants when the underlying transaction, specifically the receipt of money, was executed solely by one appellant, Muhammad Younus, and the evidence failed to establish that the firm involved was a joint enterprise. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of evidence linking the other appellants to the transaction or establishing a joint firm, the criminal proceedings against them were unsustainable. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal in part, quashing the proceedings against the three appellants who were not parties to the receipt, while directing that the case proceed against Muhammad Younus alone. The judgment reinforces the principle that criminal liability in cases of breach of trust and cheating must be grounded in specific individual involvement or clear evidence of joint liability.
- Can criminal proceedings under Sections 406 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be quashed against co-accused if the evidence only implicates one individual in the transaction?
- Is it permissible to continue criminal proceedings against one accused while quashing them against others in the same case?
- Does the absence of evidence regarding a joint firm preclude the prosecution of all partners for an alleged criminal act committed by only one partner?
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMAD, J.-This appeal by special leave of this Court is from on order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court refusing to quash the proceeding in a case registered against the appellants under sec--tions 406 and 420 read with section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code pending before a First Class Magistrate, Chunian, District Lahore.
2. The learned counsel has, however, contended that the firm belonged to appellant Muhammad Younus alone as will appear from the complaint, and the money having been given and received by him only, the complaint against the accused other than Muhammad Younus does not lie. On inquiry, Mr. M. Bilal, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 has stated that the receipt was executed by Muhammad Younus alone. Mr. Bilal has also failed to satisfy us that the firm in question is a joint one. In these circumstances we think that the case against appellants Nos. 2, 3 and 4, namely, Badar Younus, Jamal Younus and Pervaiz should be quashed.
3. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed to the extent that the case will proceed in the Court of the Magistrate, Chunian, against appellant Muhammad Younus only and that the case against the other three accused appellants shall stand quashed.
4. We direct that the case be tried out expeditiously. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 1 case
- GUL MUHAMMAD Versus State 2015 PCrLJ 1329