' Allah Yar Khan, the appellant has brought the instant appeal against the judgment dated 27-3- 2003 recorded by Mr. Saad Suleman Khan, the learned Civil Judge/Magistrate 1st Class, Mailsi whereby he has acquitted the respondents Nos.2 and 3 while exercising his powers under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. In case F.I.R. No,23, dated 5-2-2000 under section 406, P.P.C., with Police Station Tibba Sultanpur, District Vehari.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the same are that the appellant Allah Yar had accused these respondents to have committed criminal breach of trust by misappropriating his wheat weighing 65 Maunds as charges of his labour rendered to them.
3. The learned trial Court had acquitted them while exercising it's power under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Observing that there seems no breach of trust as alleged by him (appellant); and that despite allowing opportunities to the prosecution it had failed to produce it's evidence and in these circumstances there is no probability of their being convicted of any offence ultimately.
4. The appellant feeling aggrieved of the same has come up with the instant appeal.
5. It has been contended on his behalf that the learned trial Court did not adopt the coercive measures to procure the attendance of the prosecution witnesses and so has erred in acquitting them while exercising powers under section 249-A, Cr.P.C.; and that the offence of criminal breach of trust is made out in the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. I have carefully considered his submissions and gone into the copy of the impugned judgment.
7. The learned trial Court did not acquit these respondents-accused alone on the ground of non- production of prosecution evidence but also on the ground that there seem no breach of trust as alleged by him (appellant).
8. The offence of criminal breach of trust as defined in section 405, P.P.C. Is 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 of 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."
9. The punishment for the said offence has been prescribed under section 406, P.P.C. The above provision of section 405, P.P.C. Clearly shows that there must be some entrustments with property or dishonest misappropriation or conversion of the same to one's own use to make out an offence under the same.
10. From the allegation of the appellant, it has not appeared that there was any entrustment of the yield of wheat crop by the appellant to these respondents-accused. His allegation is that they did not pay him his labour charges in the shape of wheat as agreed between them.
11. Without adverting to the truthfulness or otherwise of his such allegation, one thing is very much clear that there had been no entrustment of the property by him to these respondents-accused which they had misappropriated or converted to their own use. Hence, the commission of the offence punishable under section 406, P.P.C. Definitely was not there on the part of these respondents-accused. So, there could be a futile exercise to proceed further with the case against them as ultimately on that score alone there was no probability of their being convicted of any offence ultimately. The learned trial Court therefore, has rightly exercised it's power under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. In acquitting them of the charge. The impugned judgment on that score alone is not questionable. Hence, I do not find the necessity of discussing the other contention raised on his behalf. The appeal having no merit is hereby dismissed summarily as envisaged by section 421, Cr.P.C.