MUHAMMAD QASIM vs MUHAMMAD ASIF and 3 others
This appeal challenges the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Haripur, which acquitted the respondents in a criminal case registered under sections 419 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant contended that the evidence, particularly the testimony of a witness regarding a Jirga and subsequent acknowledgments of liability, sufficiently established fraud and the misappropriation of funds. The court examined the timeline of events, noting that the F.I.R. was lodged significantly after the alleged occurrence and failed to mention the purported Jirga or the respondents' undertakings. Furthermore, the court observed that the crucial deeds allegedly signed by the respondents were not present on the trial court's record. Consequently, the court held that the dispute was essentially of a civil nature and that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence in its acquittal order. Finding no merit in the appellant's arguments, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower court's decision.
- Does the absence of crucial documentary evidence on the trial court record justify the dismissal of an appeal against acquittal?
- Can a dispute involving alleged financial liability and unproven deeds be classified as civil in nature rather than criminal fraud?
- Is an acquittal order sustainable when the F.I.R. fails to mention key prosecution witnesses or alleged extra-judicial confessions?
- Section 419, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' The appellant is aggrieved from the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Haripur, dated 27-10-1998, whereby respondents were acquitted in case F.I.R. No,10, dated 21-12-1993 under sections 419/420, P.P.C.
2. I need not repeat facts of the prosecution case for those are sufficient reflected in the judgment of the lower Court.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the evidence on record fully establishes, fraud committed by the respondents and they were the persons who deprived the appellant of Rs,4,00,000. In this connection reference was made to the statement of P.W.4, who according to the learned counsel convened Jirga on 14-12-1993 during course of which the respondents paid Rs,30,000 to him and agreed to pay the remaining amount of Rs,1,20,000. He also submitted that the respondents signed certain deeds/pronotes accepting or indicating their liabilities for the payment of the amount.
4. The occurrence took place on 8-12-1993 while the report was lodged on 21-12-1993. As stated earlier the Jirga is alleged to have been convened on 14-12-1993. The F.I.R. Does not contain any reference to such Jirga or undertaking of the respondents to pay the amount. Admittedly P.W.4 was not an eye-witness and the role attributed to him does not find any mention in the initial report. The circumstances indicate that it is a case of civil nature and even learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that there were certain deeds which are not available on the file of the trial Court. This being the position I do not find that the lower Court has not applied its mind. In fact the finding is based on correct appreciation of the evidence.
' Finding no substance the appeal is dismissed.