National Accountability Ordinance, 1999
Section 9(a)(x) A classical case of a civil dispute based upon alleged breach of agreements for which remedies lied somewhere other than in a criminal court- The record clearly shows that the investors had invested money in the appellant's business and they had not entrusted any money to him for such money to be paid back to them in its original form. Apart from that in such cases initial dishonest intention on the part of the accused person is an important factor but the evidence brought on the record clearly negated the same because admittedly the appellant had been paying profits to the investors for some time. It appears that, as admitted by some of the prosecution witnesses themselves, the appellant's business had hit the rocks and such adversity had brought misfortune not only to the appellant but also to the investors in his business.
In the peculiar circumstances of this case we have failed to find any dishonest intention on the part of the appellant so as to convert his act into a crime. The case in hand has appeared to us to be a classical case of a civil dispute based upon alleged breach of agreements for which remedies lied somewhere other than in a criminal court. This appeal is, therefore, allowed the conviction and sentence of the appellant recorded and upheld by the courts below are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge.... Hashmat Ullah =VS= The State, [7 LM (SC) 281]
