PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

Muhammad Arif Zaman vs State Ss — 2025 MLD 245 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Citation
2025 MLD 245 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Court
Lahore High Court
Year
2025
Reporter
MLD
Parties
Muhammad Arif Zaman vs State Ss
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 5---C

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

Muhammad Arif Zaman VS State Ss. 420, 468 & 471---Prevention of Corruption act (II of 1947), S. 5---Cheating and dishonestly inducing someone to deliver property, forgery for the purpose of cheating, use of a forged document as genuine, criminal misconduct---appreciation of evidence---accused were charged for committing fraud by preparing forged, fictitious and fabricated agreement to sell and grabbing a sum of Rs. 10,50,000/- from the complainant---Complainant had admitted that agreement to sell was executed with him by appellant No.2 as well as proclaimed offender not in the capacity of full owner of the land rather as purchaser of the land on the basis of agreement to sell, executed between appellate No. 2 and two others---However, it was duty of the prosecution to prove that appellant No.2 was not owner of any land there but prosecution did not produce any evidence in that regard---Moreover, it was not the case of the prosecution that appellant No.2 while claiming himself as full owner of the land made statement to Revenue Patwari regarding sale of the land to the complainant or any other person on the asking of the complainant or any mutation of the land was entered in the revenue record on the statement of appellant No.2 as owner---In both the impugned mutations, appellate No. 2 was not even signatory in any capacity---Furthermore, as per agreement to sell, if appellant No.2 failed to transfer land to the complainant, then remedy was before Civil Court for specific performance of the same or paying the double amount of the received earnest money---Therefore, prosecution had failed to prove the charge against appellant No.2---appeal against conviction to the extent of appellant No.2 was allowed, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English