PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 797
[Lahore High Court Lahore]
Present: Tanveer Ahmad Sheikh, J.
TARIQ REHMAN CHOHAN--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 43725-B of 2025, decided on 18.8.2025.
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
اعتماد کی مجرمانہ خلاف ورزی-جب کسی شخص کو غلطی سے یا بینک کے نظام میں کسی غلطی کی وجہ سے اس کے بینک اکاؤنٹ میں رقم موصول ہو جاتی ہے ، تو عام طور پر اسے پی پی سی کی دفعہ 405 کے معنی میں تفویض نہیں سمجھا جائے گا ۔ حوالگی کے لیے کسی مخصوص مقصد کے لیے جائیداد رکھنے یا استعمال کرنے کے لیے کسی دوسرے شخص پر جان بوجھ کر اعتماد رکھنے کے عمل کی ضرورت ہوتی ہے ، جس کے بعد اس شخص کے ذریعے غبن یا تبدیلی ضروری ہے ۔ عام طور پر اس طرح کی قسط پی پی سی کی دفعہ 405 کے ضروری اجزاء کو پورا نہیں کرے گی کیونکہ رقم کسی شخص کی طرف سے محفوظ رکھنے اور مخصوص مخلصانہ مقصد کے لیے نہیں دی جاتی ہے ، جب تک کہ غلطی سے موصول ہونے والے فنڈز کو غلط طریقے سے استعمال کرنے کے بے ایمان ارادے کا مزید ثبوت نہ ہو ۔
----S. 405--Criminal breach of trust-- When amount is received by a person into his bank account mistakenly or due to some error in system of bank, normally it shall not be considered to be an entrustment within meaning of Section 405 of, PPC--Entrustment requires a deliberate act of placing confidence in another person to hold or use property for a specific purpose, which then must be followed by misappropriation or conversion by that person--Normally such like episode shall not fulfill essential ingredients of Section 405 of, PPC because amount is not given by a person for safe keeping and specific fiduciary purpose, unless there is further evidence of dishonest intention to misappropriate funds received by mistake. [Pp. 800 & 801] A
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
الفاظ اور جملے "کسی بھی انداز میں"-- اعتماد کی مجرمانہ خلاف ورزی-- پی پی سی کے سیکشن 405 میں استعمال ہونے والے الفاظ "کسی بھی طرح سے" وسیع تر اہمیت کے حامل ہیں-اس میں ہر قسم کی حوالگی کا احاطہ کیا گیا ہے-اس کا اظہار یا اس کا مطلب ہو سکتا ہے-جب رقم/فنڈ درخواست گزار کے اکاؤنٹ میں آیا تو اس نے جائیداد پر کنٹرول اور ڈومین حاصل کر لیا اور کسی دوسرے شخص کو اس تک رسائی حاصل نہیں ہو سکتی تھی-بیان کردہ حقیقت کا مطلب یہ تھا کہ بینک اس کا مالک رہے گا اور وہ قانونی اور اخلاقی طور پر اس کے مالک/بینک کو واپس کرنے کا پابند تھا ، لیکن درخواست گزار نے فنڈز/رقم کو بے ایمان طریقے سے اپنے استعمال میں ڈال دیا-اس نے خود کو غلط فائدہ پہنچایا اور بینک کو غلط نقصان پہنچایا ۔
----S. 405--Words and phrases “in any manner”--Criminal breach of trust-- The words “in any manner” used in Section 405 of, PPC is of wider import--It extends to and covers all kinds of entrustment--It may be expressed or implied--When amount/fund came into account of petitioner, he acquired control and domain over property and no other person could have access thereto--Said fact was carrying with it implication that bank shall continue to be its owner and he was legally as well as morally bound to return same to its owner/bank, but petitioner put funds/amount to his own use dishonestly--He caused wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to bank.
[P. 801] B
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
ضمانت-- مسترد کر دی گئی-- ایک ہی وقت میں معزز اعلی عدالتوں نے بہت سارے فیصلوں میں یہ فیصلہ دیتے ہوئے خوشی کا اظہار کیا کہ یہ عالمگیر درخواست کا قاعدہ نہیں ہے کہ ہر ایک اور ہر معاملے میں ضمانت کی اجازت دی جانی چاہیے جو ممنوعہ شق کے تحت نہیں آتا ہے-ہر معاملے کو اس کے اپنے مخصوص حالات کی روشنی میں دیکھنا پڑتا ہے-عدالت کسی ملزم کو ضمانت سے انکار کر سکتی ہے یہاں تک کہ ان معاملات میں بھی جو پابندی کے تحت نہیں آتے ہیں ، اگر کیس کے غیر معمولی حالات کی ضرورت ہو ۔
----S. 497--Bail--Dismissed--A t same time Honourable Superior Courts were pleased to hold in plethora of judgments that it is not a rule of universal application that bail should be allowed in each and every case not falling within prohibitory clause--Each case has to be seen in light of its own peculiar circumstances--The Court may refuse bail to an accused even in cases not falling within embargo, if exceptional circumstances of case so require. [Pp. 801 & 802] C
2009 SCMR 174 & 2012 YLR 2136.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
گرفتاری کے بعد ضمانت ، برخاستگی - رقم کا غلط استعمال-- چیک کی بے عزتی-- پی ایٹیشنر نے بینک کی رقم کے غلط استعمال کے بعد اسے اپنے استعمال میں تبدیل کیا اور اس کے بعد مذکورہ رقم کی ادائیگی کے لیے چیک جاری کیا ، جس کی بے عزتی کی گئی-اس کے بعد ، اس نے دعوی کیا کہ جرائم پابندی کے دائرے میں نہیں آتے ، بلکہ کوئی جرم نہیں بنایا گیا-اس نے شرارت کے ارتکاب کے بعد توبہ محسوس نہیں کی ، بلکہ اس کا جواز پیش کیا اور اپنے موقف پر قائم رہا ۔ کسی شخص کو اپنی غلطی کے پھل کو ہضم کرنے اور اس سے لطف اندوز کرنے کی اجازت نہیں دی جاسکتی ہے-کیس کے انوکھے اور غیر معمولی حالات مجھے درخواست گزار کے حق میں اپنی صوابدید کا استعمال کرنے کی اجازت نہیں دیتے ہیں اس حقیقت کے باوجود کہ جرائم Cr.P.C کی دفعہ 497 کے تحت موجود پابندی کے تحت نہیں آتے ہیں ۔
----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860), Ss. 489-F & 405--Bail after arrest, dismissal of--Misappropriation of amount--Dishonoured of cheque--P etitioner after misappropriation of amount of bank converted same into his own use and thereafter issued cheque for repayment of above amount, which stood dishonoured--Thereafter, he claimed that offences were not falling within embargo, rather no offence was made out--He after commission of a mischief did not feel repentance, but justified same and remained firm upon his stance--A person cannot be allowed to digest and enjoy fruit of his own wrong--Peculiar and exceptional circumstances of case do not permit me to exercise my discretion in favour of petitioner despite of fact that offences were not falling within embargo contained under Section 497 of, Cr.P.C. [P. 802] D
Mr. Muhammad Usama Khaliq and Mr. Awais Bawar, Advocates for Petitioner.
Malik Ayaz Mehmood Khan, Advocate for Complainant.
Rana Tasawar Ali, Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab for State.
Date of hearing: 18.8.2025.
Order
The petitioner (Tariq Rehman Chohan), being arrayed as an accused in case F.I.R. No. 3287 of 2025, dated 23.05.2025, for offence under Sections 489-F of, PPC, registered with Police Station Nawab Town, Lahore, has sought his post arrest bail, after the same was refused by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Lahore vide order dated 25.06.2025 and then by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore through order dated 09.07.2025.
2. Case set up by complainant Mubashar Hussain Naqvi, Operation Manager, MCB in the F.I.R. was to the effect that a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/-stood transferred into the bank account of Tariq Rehman Chohan accused on account of technical mistake in the system of bank. Accused had already withdrawn Rs. 25,00,000/-. When he was contracted, he issued a cheque of Rs. 30,00,000/-in favour of the bank in order to discharge his liability, but the cheque could not be en-cashed due to non-availability of funds in his bank account.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly focused on the averments that offence under Section 489-F of, PPC was not falling within embargo contained under Section 497 of, Cr.P.C.; moreover it was punishable only with fine in alternate; no offence was made out against the petitioner from the prima facie perusal of the F.I.R.; bank authorities blocked the account of petitioner without any plausible justification, as such fault was lying upon the shoulders of bank, which was sufficient to make present case that one of further inquiry.
4. Conversely, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for complainant opposed present petition vehemently and rigorously mainly on the grounds that petitioner earlier misappropriated the funds of bank, which stood transferred into his account mistakenly, thereafter he issued a cheque in order to discharge the liability of payment, but the cheque was dishonoured as the amount was not available in his account; mode and manner adopted by petitioner was meaningful; he was liable not only for offence under Section 489-F of PPC but also for offence under Section 406 thereof simultaneously.
5. Arguments heard. File perused.
6. Before touching upon the merits of the case I think it appropriate to adhere to the legal proposition first, which erupted during the arguments. Question to be determined by this Court was as to whether joint charge for offence under Section 489-F of PPC as well as offence under Section 406 of PPC pertaining to criminal breach of trust as defined in Section 405 of PPC could be brought against the petitioner.
I think it appropriate to throw a glance upon both the above said provisions, which are being produced below for the facility of reference:
“405. Criminal breach of trust: Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property, in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust.”
“489-F. Dishonestly issuing a cheque: whoever dishonestly issues a cheque towards repayment of a loan or fulfilment of an obligation which is dishonoured on presentation, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine, or with both, unless he can establish, for which the burden of proof shall rest on him, that he had made arrangements with his bank to ensure that the cheque would be honoured and that the bank was at fault in not honouring the cheque.”
When amount is received by a person into his bank account mistakenly or due to some error in the system of bank, normally it shall not be considered to be an entrustment within the meaning of Section 405 of PPC. Entrustment requires a deliberate act of placing confidence in another person to hold or use property for a specific purpose, which then must be followed by misappropriation or conversion by that person. Normally such like episode shall not fulfill the essential ingredients of Section 405 of PPC because the amount is not given by a person for safe keeping and specific fiduciary purpose, unless there is further evidence of dishonest intention to misappropriate the funds received by mistake.
7. In the case in hand amount received by petitioner was not meant to be utilized by him, but it was to be retained and preserved by him for return back to the bank, who was owner of the amount/fund. Petitioner was supposed and required to inform the sender/bank regarding the error and make arrangements for its return to the owner/bank.
8. The words “in any manner” used in Section 405 of PPC is of wider import. It extends to and covers all kinds of entrustment. It may be expressed or implied. When the amount/fund came into the account of petitioner, he acquired control and domain over the property and no other person could have access thereto. Said fact was carrying with it the implication that the bank shall continue to be its owner and he was legally as well as morally bound to return the same to its owner/bank, but petitioner put the funds/amount to his own use dishonestly. He caused wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the bank.
Court has to see as to in what precise manner petitioner dealt with the funds coming under his control mistakenly.
9. As soon as petitioner became in a position to exercise his control over the property, the property stood entrusted to him impliedly, but he instead of returning the same to its owner/bank, withdrew an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/-and embezzled the same, as such offence punishable under Section 406 of, PPC fully attracted against him. When he was approached by bank authorities, he issued cheque of Rs. 30,00,000/-in favour of the bank in order to discharge the liability of payment, which stood dishonoured, as such offence under Section 489-F of, PPC was also made out against the petitioner.
10. As a result of above discussion, I am of the confirmed view that offence under Section 406 of PPC, although not applied upon the F.I.R., was also prima facie made out against the petitioner alongwith offence under Section 489-F of PPC and charge for both the above said offences can be brought together against the petitioner simultaneously.
11. So far as other submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, I am fully conscious of the fact that both the above said offences were carrying the penalty of imprisonment upto three years and seven years respectively, hence not falling within embargo contained in Section 497 of Cr.P.C. and bail is normally allowed in such like cases, but at the same time the Honourable
Superior Courts were pleased to hold in plethora of the judgments that it is not a rule of universal application that bail should be allowed in each and every case not falling within prohibitory clause. Each case has to be seen in the light of its own peculiar circumstances. The Court may refuse the bail to an accused even in the cases not falling within the embargo, if exceptional circumstances of the case so require. If any reference in this regard is required that can be had from ‘Shameel Ahmad v. The State’ (2009 SCMR 174), ‘Amir Sheikh v. The State’ (2012 YLR 2136).
12. In the present case, petitioner after misappropriation of amount of the bank converted the same into his own use and thereafter issued the cheque for repayment of the above amount, which stood dishonoured. Thereafter, he claimed that offences were not falling within embargo, rather no offence was made out. He after commission of a mischief did not feel repentance, but justified the same and remained firm upon his stance. A person cannot be allowed to digest and enjoy the fruit of his own wrong. Peculiar and exceptional circumstances of the case do not permit me to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner despite of the fact that offences were not falling within embargo contained under Section 497 of Cr.P.C.
13. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition has no force, hence dismissed.
14. Needless to mention that any observation made in the above order is tentative in nature and shall not influence the learned trial Court in any manner.
(A.A.K.) Bail dismissed
0 Comments