' This revision under section 439, Cr.P.C. Is directed against the judgment dated the 9th of July, 1984 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore whereby he upheld the conviction of Amanullah Butt (petitioner) under section 420, P.P.C. And kept intact the sentence of three years' R.I. With fine of Rs,5,000 (Rupees five thousand only) and in default of payment to further undergo six months' R.I.
2. A case under section 420, P.P.C. Was registered with Police Station Mozang/C.I.A., Lahore on the 3rd of August, 1980 on the complaint of Khalid Latif (P.W.1) who had first brought the matter to the notice of Sub-Martial Law Administrator, Lahore vide Exh.PA./1. Nazir Ahmed, Investigating Officer had conducted the investigation.
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner had dishonestly induced the complainant to deliver him Rs,15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand only) in cash for seeking employment for him abroad in a Shipping Company. The money was paid in presence of Ghulam Muhammad (P.W.2) and Muhammad Akram (P.W.3). The petitioner thereafter had taken the complainant and also 14 (fourteen) others from whom he had taken the money to Karachi, introduced them to his brother Musaddaq, who took them to Bangkok. The petitioner, however, had come back to Lahore.
Musaddaq, however, had not arranged any employment for the complainant and others and left them all in lurch. The complainant, however, arranged repatriation through Embassy of Pakistan in Bangkok. He after reaching Pakistan, paid Rs,3,460 (Rupees three thousand, four hundred and sixty only) as repatriation to P.IA. He demanded his money from the petitioner but he dilly-dallied him and eventually the complainant brought the crime to the notice of Sub-Martial Law Administrator, Lahore and on his instance F.I.R. Exh.PA./1 was brought about.
4. The petitioner in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C., however, denied the allegations attributed to him. He, however, admitted that it was his brother Musaddaq who had played fraud upon the complainant and had taken money from him on the pretext of securing employment for him abroad. About his involvement in the case he stated that he had not taught job of welding to one Farooq neighbour of the complainant and, therefore, the case was set up against him. This defence is on the face of it preposterous. The defence produced by the petitioner was also rightly rejected by both the Courts below.
5. The evidence against the petitioner was proved to hilt on the basis of statement of the complainant as well as the witnesses Ghulam Muhammad (P.W.2) and Muhammad Akram (P.W3) in whose presence the money was paid to the petitioner. They have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner has cheated the complainant, dishonestly inducing him to seek employment for him abroad and had taken a sum of Rs,15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand only) from him.
6. The witnesses had no animus against the petitioner to falsely involve him.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, argued that the evidence brought on record, had not fully brought home the guilt against the petitioner. Giving money by the complainant to the petitioner was in pursuance of business of the petitioner for seeking employment for him and the petitioner did make genuine efforts for the purpose. I am not impressed by the arguments that the petitioner lacked mens rea or that what he did was part of innocent business, although the learned counsel has relied on a couple of rulings Saleh Muhammad v. The State and another 1971 P Cr. L J 1329 and Syed Wajid Hussain v. The State and another 1975 SCMR 165. The facts of both the cited authorities have no relevency at all to the facts of case in hand. In the Karachi case both the complainant and the accused were dealer in almond and there was dispute over supply. The Court, therefore, had rightly held that there was no intention of cheating indicated either in complaint or in statement of complainant at the time of making bargain. The Supreme Court case also related to a company inviting verified claim holders to get property in lieu of claim through the company and the petitioner had entrusted his compensation books to the company for getting specified flats obtained by the company but were not subsequently transferred to the complainant as promised. In view of the facts of that case, the Supreme Court was of the view that the dispute was of a civil nature. Instant case is a classic example of fraud which is rampant in our country where the petitioner had cheated and dishonestly induced the complainant to part with Rs,15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand only) in exchange of promise for employment abroad.
8. For reasons aforementioned I am in complete agreement with the B verdicts of the Courts below that the petitioner had committed the offence under section 420, P.P.C.
9. As regards sentence, however, I would like to treat the matter indulgently, The complainant has died and an original affidavit of the widow of C the complainant is on record showing that she has pardoned the accused in the name of Allah and she has compromised with the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner in fact had prayed for compounding the offence but the same is not permissible under section 345, Cr.P.C. As only the person cheated can compound the offence; of course with permission of the Court. The complainant was cheated and not her widow. The petitioner, however, had remained behind the bars for about one month. I, therefore, consider it as sufficient punishment to him in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, his sentence (already served) is reduced to what he has already undergone. The sentence of fine imposed by the Court below is, however, set aside in peculiar circumstances of the case. With these terms the revision petition is disposed of.
Sentence reduced.