Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: DIL AHSAN KHAN VS Respondent: The STATE
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry Title: DIL AHSAN KHAN vs The STATE Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.75 of 1979 Criminal Misc. No.1269 of 1976 Date of Judgment:1990-06-10 Reported As: 1991 SCMR 249 Result: Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal was granted to the appellant to consider whether the Court at Karachi had the jurisdiction to try the complaint filed against the appellant. ` 2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent Mst.Zaib-un-Nisa was married to the appellant m Karachi on 26-3-1974. The wife then accompanied her husband to Jhelum. She returned to the house of her parents in Karachi for delivery of child. The respondent came to know that her husband had contracted another marriage and also misappropriated the articles of dowry. A complaint under section 403, P.P.C. Was filed against the appellant. The appellant moved an application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. For the quashment of proceedings in the High Court of Sindh which was dismissed on 24-4-1978. According to the appellant, no offence had been committed in Karachi, therefore, the Court at Karachi had no jurisdiction. The complainant m her complaint has stated that at the time of marriage the articles of dowry were delivered to the appellant and a list thereof was also supplied to him. The appellant did not return those articles to her and misappropriated the same. In her statement under section 200, Cr.P.C. She reiterated the same facts. She gave the list of articles which was attached with the complaint. The statements of her father Hayat Muhammad and a witness Amir Hussain were recorded under section 202, Cr.P.C. And they have also corroborated the statement of the complainant/respondent. According to section 181(2), Cr.P.C. "an offence of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received, or retained by the accused person, or the offence was
---
## Page 2
committed". As the allegation made by the complainant regarding entrustment was made at Karachi, therefore, Karachi Court has the jurisdiction. The learned High Court after considering the facts of the case came to the same conclusion. The question of jurisdiction was only raised which was rightly decided. The appeal has no force. The same is dismissed.