S.M. ZUBAIR, J.- This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, dated 31.5.1993, whereby he acquitted Haji Muhammad sulman, respondent No.2 from the charge under Sec^join] 420 PPC. Muhammad Ishaq, complainant (PW.1) got a case registered against respondent No.2 under Sections 506,406 and 420 PPC vide FIR No.428/90, dated 17.10.1990 at Police Station Satellite Town, Gujranwala.
2. Briefly the case of the prosecution, as disclosed by Muhammad Ishaq (PW.1) is that two years back, he delivered 91 skins to respondent No.2 for selling After 2/3 days his brother Muhammad Munir also handed over 95 skins for the purpose of selling. The respondent kept the skins in his godown, thereafter he did not make the payment and committed breach of criminal trust so the case was registered with the police. The learned Magistrate after recording the evidence vide his judgment dated 25.2.1993 convicted the respondent under Section 420 P.P.C, and awarded him two years' R.I. On appeal the conviction was set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala the impugned judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the evidence brought on the record is sufficient to sustain the conviction of the respondent under Section 406 and if the learned trial Court committed illegality by awarding him sentence under Section 420 P.P.C, the learned appellate Court should not have acquitted the respondent instead he should have passed order modifying the charge as is contemplated by Section 423 Cr.P.C, thus this nonexercise of power on the part of the learned Additional Sessions Judge has resulted in miscarriage of justice and this sole ground by itself is sufficient to up set the impugned judgment. He further contended that on the facts proved by the prosecution evidence, the learned lower appellate Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of PW.1 and Muhammad Munir PW.8 (CW.1), who deposed that they handed over 91 and 95 skins of sheep for sale to the respondent on the relevant date who kept them in his godown. Learned counsel further contended that even the respondent in his statement has not denied this fact over and above this the evidence of Haji Nazar Muhammad PW.3 who gave the award in favour of the complainant further supports the prosecution case that these skins were given to the respondent as trust and by not returning the skins or the equivalent amount, the respondent has committed the criminal breech of trust punishable under Section 406 P.P.C.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and I find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the appeal on the ground that no element of deception is proved on the i.e which could justify the conviction of the respondent under Section 420 P.P.C, which fact is even admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The sole ground urged before me is that if the prosecution evidence is believed, offence under Section 406 PPC is made out. I am afraid this contention is devoid of force as the dispute between the parties was with respect of non-payment of the money or at the most may be dispute regarding the breech of contract i.e. Skins were purchased by the respondent but the money was not paid. Even the parties treated this transaction as a civil transaction that is why the matter was referred to Haji Nazar Muhammad PW.3. In order to justify the conviction of a person under Section 406 PPC the most important ingredient is the intention of a person i.e. Whether the skins were given in trust and whether the trustee had from the very beginning the intention not to honour the entrustment given to him.
Reading the evidence as a whole one gets the impression that these two basic elements of the offence are not proved. On the contrary the evidence coupled with the documentary evidence i.e. EX.DB to EX.DJ clearly show that from the very beginning the case of the complainant was that it is a transaction of civil nature in which the complainant was aggrieved with respect to the non- payment of the price of skins of sheep mentioned above. As the offence is of a civil nature of course the conviction in criminal law was not warranted. The learned lower appellate Court rightly passed the order of acquittal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any gross misreading of the evidence which could confer jurisdiction upon this Court to upset the acquittal order in revisional jurisdiction.
5. In view of the above discussion, I find no force in this revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed.