' MUHAMMAD YAWAR ALI, J.---With the consent of the parties, the case is being treated as "Pacca" case.
2. Through this petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned F.I.R. No,135/2013 dated 21-2-2013 for offence under section 406, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Model Town District Gujranwala.
3. According to the F.I.R. The petitioner was appointed an Agent by respondent No,3 in the year 2006 for the purposes of utilizing some portion of chemicals supplied to him by the complainant and selling the rest for profit. After 2009 the petitioner defaulted in making payment of Rs,20,00,000 to the complainant namely respondent No,3 and by so doing committed a cognizable offence.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the F.I.R. Has been lodged with an inordinate delay. A bare reading of the F.I.R. Would show that the petitioner is not guilty of having committed an offence under section 406, P.P.C. The dispute between the petitioner and the complainant is essentially of a civil nature. The F.I.R. Which has been lodged with mala fide intention and ulterior motives is liable to be quashed as there is no chance of the petitioner being convicted for an offence under section 406, P.P.C.
5.. The learned law officer has not opposed the petition. After referring to the contents of the F.I.R. He has submitted that the petitioner cannot be convicted as the essential ingredients of section 405, P.P.C. Are missing in this case.
6. The learned counsel for respondent No,3 (complainant herein) has vehemently opposed this petition by submitting that the petitioner has been named in the F.I.R. And a specific role has been attributed to him. The petitioner who was appointed an Agent by respondent No,3 committed criminal breach of trust by misappropriating a sum of Rs,20,00,000 which was due to the complainant. The guilt or innocence of the petitioner would be determined by the trial Court during the course of trial. Miscarriage of justice would be occasioned in case the prosecution case is stifled at this stage by quashing of the F.I.R.
7. I have heard the arguments which have been advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record with their able assistance. According to the F.I.R. Some chemicals were supplied by respondent No,3 to the petitioner for the sole purpose that the petitioner would utilize some portion of it, sell the rest for profit and return to respondent No,3 the amount which was due to him. The definition of criminal breach of trust is given in section 405, P.P.C. Which reads as follows:-- "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 use 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".
A bare reading of the provision of law reproduced above shows that a person can only be guilty of committing an offence under section 406, P.P.C. If some property is given on trust and the same property is not returned to its original owner. In the instant case it is quite clear that as per the impugned F.I.R. Certain chemicals were periodically delivered by respondent No,3 to the petitioner in order to do business, sell the same for profit and hand over the due amount of money to respondent No,3. It is thus clear even if the contents of the F.I.R. Are taken as the gospel truth the petitioner cannot be convicted for an offence under section 406, P.P.C. An illuminating judgment of this court in Shaukat Ali Sagar v. Station House Officer, Police Station Batala Colony, Faisalabad and 5 others 2006 PCr.LJ 1900 and another judgment delivered by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Shahid Imran v. The State etc. 2011 SCM R 1614 can be read with considerable advantage.
In the instant case the transaction as referred to in the F.I.R. Is not one of entrustment of the property rather it is one of an investment that is profit to be earned on selling of chemicals provided by respondent No,3 and sharing of the profit by the parties concerned. Admittedly no time and date has been given in the body of the F.I.R. Indicating as to when the offence was committed.
In the F.I.R. It has merely been mentioned that the offence was committed somewhere in the year 2009. It is trite that no one is to be prosecuted on the basis of vague and unspecified allegations.
The F.I.R. Has also been lodged with an inordinate delay for which no plausible explanation is forthcoming. The offence is stated to have taken place in the year 2009 whereas the F.I.R. Was lodged with a long delay on 21-2-2013. From the above discussion, it is quite clear that the trial Court after submission of challan would not be in a position to frame charge, and proceed further against the accused/petitioner. The continuation of any criminal proceedings on the basis of the impugned F.I.R. Would be an abuse of process of law.
8. For what has been stated above, this petition is accepted and the impugned F.I.R. No,135/2013 dated 21-2-2013 for offence under section 406, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Model Town District Gujranwala is hereby quashed. 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.