JUDGMENT ALI BAQAR. NAJAFI, J.- Appellant, Khalid Pervaiz;, filed the instant appeal against judgment dated 24.02.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Chakwal in case F.I.R.
No. 196, dated 15.11.2007 registered under Section 406, P.P.C, at Police Station Dhuman, District Chakwal, acquitting Jabar Nadeem, respondent No. 1, accused in the F.I.R.
2. The case of the prosecution is that respondent No. 1 through Zain Motors in the presence of witnesses took Toyota Corolla Car No. 04)323, Model 1970 with photocopy of registration book on rent at the rate of Rs.. 1,500/- per month from the appellant on 08.11.2006 which he neither returned to the appellant nor paid any rent to him. Respondent No. 1 has also, extended threats to appellant for his murder and destruction and sale of vehicle in-case-the appellant made a demand of its return.
3. Respondent No, 1 after investigation was challaned and charge-sheeted by the learned Trial Court to which he denied and claimed trial. The learned Trial Court on concluding the trial acquitted respondent No. 1.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the judgment is against law and facts and principle of criminal justice; that the appellant is owner and respondent No. 1 took the car from appellant; that Haji Riaz Hussain took the vehicle on Superdari before the registration of criminal case; that the impugned judgment is based on misreading and non-reading of evidence; that the learned Trial Court has not applied its judicious mind in acquitting respondent No. 1. He lastly prays that respondent No. 1 be convicted and sentenced by setting aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate.
3. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has supported the judgment rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate by submitting that the judgment is based on sound reasons and respondent No. 1 has rightly been acquitted as there is no evidence against him.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record minutely.
5. Respondent No. 1 in his defence produced Exh.DA which reveals that owner of the vehicle was Haji Riaz Hussain who sold it to Matayab Ali son of Khalid Mehmood. This document negates the version of the appellant that he is the owner of vehicle. The vehicle was recovered from PW-1 who in his deposition admitted that Matayab Ali son of Khalid Mehmood made part payment of the vehicle.
The ingredients of criminal breach of trust are missing as the entrustment cannot be by someone who is not the owner and lawfully in possession of the vehicle. Even otherwise respondent No. 1 has earned the double presumption of innocence. There are material contradictions in the statements of the PWs which also dent the prosecution case.
6. For what has been observed above, this appeal has no merits and is, therefore, dismissed.