Misuse of Section 406 PPC in Business Disputes — Supreme Court of Pakistan Sets Clear Limits.
دفعہ 406 تعزیراتِ پاکستان کا غلط استعمال
دفعہ 406 PPC
کی نوعیت اور دائرہ اختیار
دفعہ 406 PPC کے لازمی قانونی اجزاء
امانت (Entrustment) کا قانونی مفہوم
امانت میں عارضی قبضہ اور مخصوص مقصد
سرمایہ کاری اور کاروباری لین دین
کاروباری نقصان اور فوجداری ذمہ داری
شراکت داری کے مالی تنازعات
فروخت اور امانت میں فرق
فوجداری قانون کا غلط استعمال
شہری آزادی اور عدالتی ذمہ داری
عدالتی جانچ اور ضمانت کا اصول
نتیجہ
Must read judgement#
2025 SCMR 1145
سپریم کورٹ نے فوجداری مقدمات میں امانت میں خیانت میں 406 پی پی سی غلط استعمال روکنے ہوئے قرار دیا ہے کہ سیکشن 406 PPC صرف امانت کی خلاف ورزی پر لاگو ہوتا ہے، اور کاروباری یا سرمایہ کاری کے معاملات میں صرف مالی نقصان کی وجہ سے مقدمہ درج کرنا غیر
قانونی یے
سیکشن 406 PPC (خیانت مجرمانہ) کا اطلاق صرف اس صورت میں ہوتا ہے جب مخصوص امانت میں بددیانتی ثابت ہو، کاروباری یا شراکت داری کے مالی تنازعات میں محض نقصان کی بنیاد پر 406 PPC کے تحت مقدمہ درج کرنا قانون کی خلاف ورزی اور ناقابلِ عمل ہے। مشترکہ کاروبار میں رقم کا لین دین ذاتی امانت نہیں سمجھا جا سکتا।
کلیدی قانونی نکات (2025 SCMR 1145 - 2025 PLC 1145 یا متعلقہ عدالتی نظیر):
خصوصی سپردگی (Entrustment): سیکشن 406 کے لیے ضروری ہے کہ رقم یا چیز خاص طور پر کسی مقصد کے لیے سپرد کی گئی ہو اور اسے غلط طریقے سے استعمال (Misappropriation) کیا گیا ہو۔
مشترکہ اثاثے: اگر معاملہ صرف شراکت داری (Partnership) کے مشترکہ اثاثوں کا ہو، تو اسے "امانت" کے زمرے میں نہیں لایا جا سکتا۔
کاروباری نقصانات: کاروباری سودوں میں مالی نقصان کو فوجداری بددیانتی (Criminal Breach of Trust) قرار نہیں دیا جا سکتا۔ یہ دیوانی نوعیت کا معاملہ ہے۔
عدالتی تشویش: عدالتوں نے کاروباری لین دین میں 406 PPC کے غلط استعمال پر ناپسندیدگی کا اظہار کیا ہے۔
خلاصہ: محض کاروباری یا سرمایہ کاری کے تنازع میں مالی نقصان کی وجہ سے 406 PPC کی ایف آئی آر درج کرنا قانونی طور پر غلط ہے۔
2025 SCMR 1130
.
خیانت مجرمانہ(406 ت پ) کی حقیقی تعریف اور اطلاق۔
سپریم کورٹ اس امر پر انتہائی تشویش اور ناپسندیدگی کا اظہار کیا ہے کہ 406 ت پ کی انتہائی غلط تعبیر و تشریح کرتے لیں دیں یا کاروباری معاملات میں دفعہ 406 ت پ کے تحت ایف آئی آر درج کردی جاتی ہے جوکہ قانون کی کھلی خلاف ورزی ہے۔
A plain reading of section 406 PPC reveals that, there are two requisite elements which are necessary to establish a case of criminal breach of trust. Firstly, the accused must have been entrusted with a property as trust (amanat), or must have dominion over it as trust (amanat). Secondly, after such entrustment or dominion is created, the accused must have breached that trust by either dishonestly misappropriating or converting the property to his own use, or dishonestly using or disposing of it in violation of any direction of law, an express or implied legal contract related to the discharge of the trust, or willfully allowing another person to(naeem) do any of these acts. Both of these elements need to be present in order to constitute criminal breach of trust.
The term ‘entrustment’, as used in section 405 P.P.C, means that a property is given to a person as a trust (amanat), whereby, a confidence is reposed in the recipient person and he is obligated to return the same to person making the entrustment. The attachment of this obligation in the entrustment implies that the ownership of the property in question remains with the person who has given the property and has not been transferred, in any manner, to the person receiving the property, who is only temporarily given possession/custody of the entrusted property for a specific purpose and the same property is to be returned by the said person. The entrusted property cannot be used by or disposed of in any other manner or for any purpose other than as was decided by the person making the entrustment. In this manner, entrustment creates a fiduciary relationship between the giver and receiver of the entrusted property. However, this (naeem)does not automatically imply that entrustment has to comply with the technicalities of trust law.
It is also trite law that the term ‘entrustment’ is used in a broad sense under section 405 P.P.C and therefore, it encompasses a wide variety of contexts in which a property is handed over by an owner to a recipient person as trust (amanat). This is evident from the illustrations provided in section 405 P.P.C, which demonstrate various situations wherein the offence of criminal breach of trust can be committed.
An entrustment can arise in any situation wherein property has been entrusted in the above discussed manner leading to the creation of a fiduciary relationship between the giver and recipient of the entrusted property. However, there are a number of situations in which no entrustment is made, thereby excluding the possibility of the commission of criminal breach of trust as defined under section 405 P.P.C. Foremost among such situations are those in which money or property is invested, sold or given for a business purpose entailing a promise of profit.
Therefore, in a situation where property or money is invested in a business venture it is utilized for some business purpose, whereas, in a situation of entrustment, the property in question is given for a specific purpose — namely, to be returned—and cannot be used for any other purpose by the recipient. If the entrusted (naeem)property is dishonestly misappropriated and used for any other purpose, it would result in a criminal breach of trust.
In the case of a sale, the ownership of the concerned property does not remain with the person giving the property, but rather, it stands transferred to the recipient. Consequently, the concerned property is not to be returned to the owner so there is no concept of entrustment or trust (amanat), as required for criminal breach of trust, in a transaction of sale. Therefore, as there can be no entrustment between a seller and a purchaser, relations between a shop-keeper and customer, vendor and vendee, or seller and purchaser does not come within the ambit of criminal breach of trust as defined in section 405 P.P.C.
As a necessary implication of the above discussion, it is also well recognized that mere failure to pay profits, or a breach of promise, agreement or contract in the absence of clear entrustment of property, do not attract criminal breach of trust.
Section 497 Cr.P.C. bifurcates non-bailable offences into two distinct categories: those that fall within the prohibitory clause and those that do not.
Before parting with this judgment, we deem it necessary to record our deep concern over two unfortunate matters that have come to our notice in the proceedings of this case, Firstly, we have noticed that there is a disturbing pattern of misconstruction and misapplication of section 405 P.P.C. The offence of(naeem) criminal breach of trust is increasingly being invoked in circumstances that are purely civil in nature, such as, business disputes. Instead of resorting to appropriate civil remedies, litigants seek to initiate criminal proceedings merely to expedite the recovery of lost money or to exert undue pressure on the opposing party. This practice is wholly against the established scheme of criminal and civil law. Matters that are inherently civil in nature, such as those involving contractual disputes or monetary claims cannot be misinterpreted or deliberately converted into criminal cases for the purpose of gaining revenge, coercing settlements, or recovering financial losses. Such abuse of criminal law not only undermines the sanctity of civil remedies but also clogs the criminal justice system by diverting precious judicial resources, and exposing individuals to unwarranted criminal proceedings, which often culminate in grave miscarriages of justice. It is the duty of Courts to remain vigilant to prevent any misuse or misapplication of law. While dealing with cases of criminal breach of trust, Courts must carefully scrutinize the case to determine if the two requisite elements of the offence are fulfilled, and where such elements are not present, (naeem)Courts must judicially and liberally exercise their discretion in grant of bail. This, however, does not imply that courts should indiscriminately grant bail in every matter where a civil element is apparent. Rather, it underscores the obligation of courts to carefully examine whether the statutory ingredients of the alleged offence are duly satisfied and established on the record before allowing the criminal process to proceed. This duty assumes greater significance at the bail stage, as the fundamental right of liberty of citizens is directly under question at that stage. It would be a grave miscarriage of justice to confine a person to jail for an offence that is not prima facie made out in the first place. It is imperative that this duty is to be discharged at the very first forum of bail, namely, by magisterial courts.
This brings us to the second matter, which is one of even greater importance. We have observed with extreme disappointment that courts of first instance repeatedly fail to adhere to and apply (naeem)the clear principles established by this Court in the Tariq Bashir case (supra). This blatant disregard of judicial precedent is not only highly prejudicial for hierarchical structure of judicial authority, but is also contrary to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Where this court deliberately and with the intention of settling the law, pronounces upon a question, then such pronouncement is law within the meaning of Article 189 of the Constitution, which stipulates that precedent established by this Court is binding upon all subordinate courts. Therefore, the law pronounced therein cannot be treated as mere obiter dictum. For elaboration, reference in this regard can be made to cases reported as Justice Khurshid Anwar Bhinder v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2010 SC 483) and Allied Bank Limited v. Habib-ur-Rehman (2023 SCMR 1232). Exercise of discretion by subordinate courts regarding the application of binding precedent is completely impermissible and amounts to a grave dereliction of judicial duty. The disregard of binding precedent in matters of bail, especially where liberty is at stake, is wholly unacceptable and borders on judicial indiscipline. Lower courts are not at liberty to pick and choose which judgments of the Supreme Court to follow. As such, courts of first instance are bound to apply the principles laid down in the Tariq Bashir case (supra) while deciding bail applications in cases of offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C., and in such cases, bail must be granted as a rule and refused only in exceptional circumstances. In view of the principles of law enunciated above and the directions issued herein, we consider it appropriate to direct the Office to send a copy of this judgment to the Registrars of all the High Courts who must circulate this among all District Courts across the country for their information and necessary guidance, together with a solemn reminder that its implementation is not optional but mandatory under the law and the constitution.
Crl.P.L.A.170-L/2025
Muhammad Amjad Naeem v. The State
No comments:
Post a Comment