Citation Name : 2007 SCMR 222 SUPREME-Court

Side Appellant : BRANCH MANAGER, MESSRS UNITED REFRIGERATION

INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD.
Side Opponent : State
---S. 526---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-f ---Constitution of Pakistan (1973),
Art.185(3)---Transfer of criminal case---Parties were locked in with each other in
criminal and civil litigation---Respondent had filed suit for recovery of amount
against petitioner and petitioner had filed criminal case against respondent
under S.489-f , P.P.C.---Civil suit filed by respondent having been transferred by
High Court from place 'K' to place 'P', petitioner had requested that his criminal
case against respondent be also transferred, but, High Court declined to do so by
impugned judgment---Validity---Held it was appropriate and in the interest of
justice, if both civil and criminal cases be heard at one station---Since civil suit
filed by respondent had already been transferred to place 'P', no injustice would
be caused to respondent, if case of petitioner be also transferred from place 'K' to
place 'P'---Petition was converted into appeal and impugned judgment was set
aside and case was transferred accordingly.

Citation Name : 2007 YLR 518 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : TAHIR RASHID
Side Opponent : State
---S. 489-f ---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---
Quashing of orders---Investigation in the case had prima facie been conducted
mala fide and cancellation report of F.I.R. was prepared merely relying upon the
version of respondents/accused party that cheque in question was issued only as
a guarantee for a person who had dealing with complainant/petitioner---Cheque
in dispute had been issued by respondent in favour of petitioner, which was
presented before the Bank, twice, but same was dishonoured each time due to
insufficiency of funds and prima facie offence under S.489-f , P.P.C. was made
out---Whether cheque in dispute had been issued as a guarantor or towards
repayment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation required recording of
evidence and it was the function of the Court to decide whether there was some
element of dishonesty on the part of executants of the cheque---Magistrate had
agreed with the police report through impugned order in a mechanical manner
and he appeared to have not applied judicial mind to consider the facts of the
case---Impugned order though was an executive order, but Magistrate was to
pass speaking order and he, in no way, was bound by the police opinion to agree
with the same---Police opinion was not binding on the Court---Magistrate did
not properly exercise jurisdiction vested in him, which had rendered impugned
order illegal and without jurisdiction---High Court being competent to interfere
therewith, constitutional petition was accepted and impugned order was set
aside, with direction to remand case to Magistrate, who would pass fresh orders
on cancellation report, submitted by the police within specified period.
Citation Name : 2007 YLR 347 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Ch. JAVED MAHMOOD
Side Opponent : State
----Ss. 497 & 87--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.406 & 489-f ---Bail after arrest,
grant of-Dishonoured cheque---Pendency of civil suit between the parties---Civil
and criminal proceedings to continue side by side---Scope---Allegation against
accused/petitioner was that he allegedly issued a cheque of certain sum in
favour of complainant which on presentation to bank was dishonoured---
Accused contended that he was involved in the case on account of an F.I.R.
which he had lodged against complainant; that matter was of civil nature and a
suit in this regard had been filed by complainant against accused and that
offence mentioned in F.I.R. did not fall in prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.-
Validity-Accused was named in F.I.R. and specific role of issuing cheque in
favour of complainant had been assigned to him which on presentation to bank
was dishonoured---During police investigation accused was found fully involved
in crime alleged against him---Challan had been submitted before Court and
prosecution evidence had been summoned---Proceedings under S.87, Cr.P.C. had
been initiated by Trial Court---Accused, moreover, was habitual offender as six
cases of similar nature stood registered against him---Civil and criminal
proceedings could continue side by side---Contention of accused that cheque
from cheque book of accused was procured by third person on behalf of accused
in connivance with complainant was baseless as no complaint or F.I.R. was
lodged by him in this regard---Petition was dismissed.

Citation Name : 2007 YLR 309 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD JAVED
Side Opponent : State
--S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-f ---Pre-arrest bail, refusal of---Scope of
pre-arrest bail was limited---Court had to see, if there was prima facie, no ground
to implicate accused or accused had been involved mala fide---Accused, in the
present case, lodged a report with the police, but failed to inform Manager of the
Bank regarding theft of the cheque book---Story of accused, in circumstances
seemingly was not palpable---Rapt of theft of cheque book was lodged on 23-8-
2004, but occurrence took place after two years thereafter---1f somebody had
stolen the cheque book in August, 2004, he would have used same much earlier
than in case of present occurrence---Bail application was dismissed, in
circumstances.

Citation Name : 2007 PCRLJ 388 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Dr. MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AZAM
Side Opponent : ARIF ALI
---Ss. 497(5) & 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 489-f
---Bail, cancellation of---No role whatsoever was attributed to co-accused in
whole of the F.I.R. and investigation---Application for cancellation of bail filed by
petitioner/complainant to the extent of co-accused, was dismissed---Prosecution
evidence revolved around accused who was main culprit in the case---Accused
went to petitioner/complainant and asked him to purchase plot in question by
introducing another co-accused as actual owner of plot in question---Accused
was the person who had issued cheque to complainant, but when complainant
went to get said cheque encashed, he was told by the Bank that account of
accused had been closed---Accused was granted bail before arrest---Validity---
Consideration for grant of bail before arrest was totally different from bail after
arrest---Trial Court had granted bail to said accused on surmises and
conjectures---No case for grant of bail before arrest having been made out to the
extent of accused, application for cancellation of bail to his extent was accepted
and bail granting order was recalled accordingly.

Citation Name : 2007 PCRLJ 100 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : FARRUKH HAMEED
Side Opponent : State
---S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-f ---Bail, grant of---Accused issued a
cheque as earnest money to complainant, which prima facie was not an
obligation---Real intention of the parties with regard to the agreement would be
determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence---Offence for which
accused was charged, did not fall under prohibited clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---
Accused was behind the bars and no more required for further investigation---To
keep accused behind the bars for an indefinite period would not serve any useful
purpose---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2007 MLD 123 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : ABDUL RAHIM
Side Opponent : State
---S. 489-f ---Appreciation of evidence---Assistant Chief Manager of State Bank of
Pakistan sent report that currency note in question was forged one, but he based
his opinion on the report submitted by Assistant Chief Manager Cash-
Prosecution did not examine said two Managers---Effect---Mere production of
report of the Managers, would not absolve prosecution from examining the
person who issued said document/ report---Said report would not come within
the ambit of S.510, Cr.P.C. so as to exclude recording of evidence of concerned
officer whose report was produced in the Court---Without such evidence, it
could not be held that currency note in question was forged one---Prosecution, in
circumstances had failed to prove main ingredients of the offence---Finding such
defect in the prosecution evidence, Advocate General had not supported
prosecution case---Conviction and sentence awarded to accused by the Trial
Court under impugned judgment were set aside and accused was acquitted and
set free, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2006 SCMR 1192 SUPREME-Court

Side Appellant : Haji SARDAR KHALID SALEEM
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD ASHRAF
---Arts. 185(3) & 199---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420, 468, 471 & 489-f
---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.249-A & 265-K---Constitutional
petition before High Court---Competency---Quashing of F.I.R.---Constitutional
petition for quashing of F.I.R. was accepted by High Court on the ground that
cheque in question was issued prior to the promulgation of Criminal Law
(Amendment) Ordinance (LXXXV of 2002)---Intra-Court appeal was also
dismissed on the ground of' being not maintainable---Mere mentioning of S.489-f
, P.P.C. in the F.I.R., was no ground to quash F.I.R. by High Court while
exercising constitutional jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution, without
adverting to contents of F.I.R.---Petitioner had alternative remedy to raise
objection at the time of framing charge against him by the Trial Court or at the
time of final disposal of the trial by the Trial Court after recording evidence---
Even otherwise petitioner had more than one alternative remedies viz. before,
the Trial Court under Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 i.e. S.265-A or 249-A,
Cr.P.C. and that fact was also not considered by High Court---If the contents of
constitutional petition and F.I.R. were put in juxtaposition, then it would bring
case of petitioner in the area of disputed question of fact which could not be
decided by High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction which
required investigation and evidence of parties to be recorded by the Trial
Court---High Court, in circumstances had erred in law in accepting
constitutional petition by quashing F.I.R. at initial stage---Cheque in question
which was issued, having been dishonoured, ingredients of Ss.420, 468 &.471,
P.P.C. were prima facie, attracted---Petition for leave to appeal was converted to
appeal and was allowed setting aside the impugned order---Supreme Court had
ample jurisdiction to condone delay in case party would approach wrong
forum---Delay was condoned.

Citation Name : 2006 SCMR 1192 SUPREME-Court

Side Appellant : Haji SARDAR KHALID SALEEM
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD ASHRAF
--Art. 199---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420, 468, 471 & 489-f ---Constitutional
jurisdiction---Scope---If, prima facie, an offence had been committed, ordinary
course of trial before the Court: should not to be allowed to be deflected by
resorting to constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---By accepting
constitutional petition, high Court would err in law to short circuit the normal
procedure as provided by law, while exercising equitable jurisdiction which was
not in consonance with the law.

Citation Name : 2006 PLD 491 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : JAFFAR ALl ALVI
Side Opponent : State
---S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-f ---Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---
Accused and complainant were business partners but parted later on---Subject-
matter of F.I.R. related to accounts---Investigating Officer himself had reported
before the Sessions Judge that no cognizable offence was committed within his
jurisdiction---Order of Civil Court U.A.E.(foreign) was also on the record which
indicated existence of dispute between both the parties---Record also showed
that the. accused was a businessman and had no criminal record---Held, purpose
of law of pre-arrest bail was to protect liberty and reputation of citizens,
particularly in a case where circumstances and facts were full of suspicion---
Benefit of doubt was always given to the accused person, especially when it
involved curtailment of liberty---Controversy over settlement of accounts
germinated hatred and mala tide---Element of mala fide thus could not be ruled
out in circumstances---High Court, allowed the application and interim bail
granted to accused was confirmed subject to his furnishing of fresh surety bonds
in the sum of Rs. twenty lacs with two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar of the High Court.

Citation Name : 2006 PLD 434 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : JAFFAR ALI ALVI
Side Opponent : SESSIONS JUDGE, ISLAMABAD
---S. 489-f ---Provision of S.489-f , C.P.C. is a valid and living law.

Citation Name : 2006 PLD 434 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : JAFFAR ALI ALVI
Side Opponent : SESSIONS JUDGE, ISLAMABAD
--S. 154---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-f ---Police Rules, 1934, R.25.2---
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Registration of
case---Existence of correct or incorrect fact was not a requirement; requirement
was that the information must disclose commission of a cognizable offence---
Question as to impact of cheques issued by a company or signed on behalf of a
company required investigation, which could not be undertaken under
constitutional jurisdiction---High Court dismissed the constitutional petition
with specific directions to the Investigating Officer observing that fair and
independent investigation was statutory right and at the same time obligation of
police---Courts could neither directly interfere nor influence investigating Officer
in investigation---Investigating Officer was further directed to bear in mind his
responsibility and seek guidance from R.25.2 Police Rules, 1934.

Citation Name : 2006 PLD 302 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : JEHAN KHAN
Side Opponent : State
---S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-f ---Bail, refusal of---Grant of
concession of bail in non-bailable offences being discretionary, the same could
not be demanded as of right---Accused was allegedly involved in the
commission of a series of identical crimes under S.489-f , P.P.C. which had
stigmatized him with habituality weighing against grant of bail---Admission of
guilt by the accused was also an exceptional circumstance which together with
element of fraud inherent to the offence, had made the case utterly unsuitable for
the grant of bail to him---Bail was refused to accused in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2006 CLD 1314 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Manor (Retd.) JAVED INAYAT KHAN KIYANI
Side Opponent : State
---S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-f ---Pre-arrest bail, grant of --- F.I.R.
had shown that cheque in question was issued from joint account of accused and
co-accused to be encashed on specified date---Said cheque was signed by both of
them, which had indicated that they were partners and possibility of possession
of cheques jointly signed by them with co-accused could not be ruled out---
Payment was made to complainant despite letter of accused to the Bank that joint
account be closed---Co-accused gave cheque to complainant who got it encashed
before accused could inform Batik not to encash any cheque from the joint
account---On the basis of said payment in favour of complainant, Investigating
Officer, found that actual payment was made to complainant from the joint
account and no wrongful loss was caused to him---Police record also indicated
that accused had informed the Bank that partnership between accused and his
co-accused ended and jointly signed cheques be not honoured---Opinion of the
police though was not binding, but it had a persuasive value in all criminal
matters including bail before arrest---Cheque in question either was not issued
by accused at all or it was issued jointly by accused and co-accused---No harm
came to co-accused from complainant side---If said cheque was issued
dishonestly, then it was issued by both of them---Agreement to buy machinery
mentioned in F.I.R., might have existed between co-accused and complainant,
accused had no obligation or liability towards complainant which he failed to
fulfil---Accused also did not owe any loan to complainant---Element of mala
fides on part of complainant, could not be ruled out in circumstances-- Accused,
who was a retired army officer and a businessman, had been declared innocent
by Investigating Officer---Interim bail granted to accused was confirmed, in
circumstances.

Citation Name : 2006 CLD 1314 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Manor (Retd.) JAVED INAYAT KHAN KIYANI
Side Opponent : State
---Ss. 2(d)(iv), 7, 20 & 22---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-f [as added vide S.2 of
Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance (LXXXV Of 2002)]--Recovery of loan---
Procedure ---Object and reason for enacting Financial Institutions (Recovery of
Finances) Ordinance, 2001 and S.489-f , P.P.C., was to provide single forum to the
Banks for the recovery of their loans from their customers and like-wise to the
customers to approach the same Court if they had any grievance against the
Banks---Word "loan" was substituted in P.P.C. with word "finance", similarly,
punishment of one year was substituted with three years in P.P.C.---Objective to
legislate S.20(4) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001,
was different than objective to legislate S.489-f , P.P.C., but S.489-f , P.P.C. had
not been legislated/drafted differently--Purpose of enacting said laws was to
provide speedy measures for the recovers/of outstanding loans and finances---
Under S.7 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, a
Banking Court was conferred criminal jurisdiction to try offences punishable
under said Ordinance and for the purpose, same powers were vested as were
vested in the Court of Session in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898---Banking
Court could take cognizance of any offence under Financial Institutions
(Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 upon a complaint in writing made by a
person authorized in that behalf by concerned Financial Institutions in respect of
which offence was committed---Whenever an offence was committed under
S.20(4) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, Banking
Court would take cognizance on a complaint filed by authorized person and the
complaint would be tried by concerned Banking Court --- Appeal was provided
before two Judges of the High Court under S.22 of Financial Institutions
(Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---Under S.489-f , P.P.C., an F.I.R. was
lodged with a concerned police station and after submission of final report,
jurisdiction of trial was conferred upon Magistrate of the First Class and appeal
could be filed before concerned Sessions Judge---Section 489-f , P.P.C. would be
attracted where an individual would issue a cheque dishonestly in favour of
another individual and the same was dishonoured on presentation---Purpose of
both enactments was different and the procedure for prosecution was also
different---Banking Laws relating to recovery, expressly or impliedly, envisaged
effect of issuance of cheque "dishonestly" or "inadvertently".

Citation Name : 2006 CLD 1314 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Manor (Retd.) JAVED INAYAT KHAN KIYANI
Side Opponent : State
--S. 489-f [as added vide S.2 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance (LXXXV
of 2002)]---Object of S. 489-f , P.P.C. was to curb the fraudulent or dishonest
issuance of cheques to cause dishonest gain or to cause dishonest loss---Before
approaching investigation agency or launching a criminal prosecution, it was
necessary to establish, prima facie, that cheque was issued dishonestly and with
the intention to defraud---To know the intention of a drawer a payee could give a
notice to the drawer after dishonour of cheque by the drewee and before
approaching the police or the Court---Word "dishonestly" employed in S.489-f ,
P.P.C. required conscious and serious examination.

Citation Name : 2006 YLR 3199 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD AKHTAR
Side Opponent : State
---S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-f ---Bail, grant of---Challan submitted
in Court---Custody of accused not required for investigation --Accused remained
in Jail for more than two months---Offence not falling within prohibitory clause
of S. 497, Cr.P.C.---Accused was granted bail in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2006 YLR 3043 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD NADEEM
Side Opponent : State
--S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-f ---Pre-arrest bail, refusal of--Issuance
of cheques in question by accused stood admitted---Accused during
investigation, was found guilty---Prima facie there appeared to be material
evidence available on record connecting accused with the commission of crime---
Counsel for accused had not been able to point out any malice, the basic
ingredient for the grant of pre-arrest bail, either on the part of complainant or the
police to involve him falsely in the case---Complainant had been allegedly
deprived of a huge amount at the hands of accused---Accused could not be
admitted to pre-arrest bail---Bail petition was dismissed and interim anticipatory
bail allowed to accused, was recalled.

Citation Name : 2006 YLR 3015 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Haji MUHAMMAD SADIQ
Side Opponent : S.H.O., POLICE STATION, SADAR GUJRAT
---Art. 199---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-f ---Quashing of F.I.R.---
Constitutional petition---Petitioner, no doubt had placed on record an
application moved to D.P.O. at place 'R' and also application moved under S.22-
A, Cr.P.C. for registration of the case against complainant as the cheques issued
by him, were dishonoured, but Justice of Peace had directed petitioner to seek
remedy at place 'G' as cheques were dishonoured there---Present case had been
registered against petitioner that his cheque was lost which version, if was
correct, could be appreciated only after recording of evidence and through probe
by Investigating Officer, and High Court could not assume the role of
Investigating Officer---If civil suit was filed, same was between petitioner and
other party and complainant appeared to have no concern with said suit being
not party in said suit, which could not be taken as a ground for quashing of F.I.R.
in the case---Constitutional Petition was disposed of with direction to S.P.
(Investigation) at place 'G' to entrust investigation of the case to another Police
Officer not below the rank of Inspector, who would record version of petitioner
as well and conduct investigation fairly and properly.

Citation Name : 2006 YLR 2042 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : KASHIF ALI
Side Opponent : State
---S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-f ---Bail, grant of---Civil suit being
pending adjudication in respect of dispute raised in F.I.R., accused was entitled
to concession of bail---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.