| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 1743 2019 SLD 1743 2019 PCRLJ 1244 |
Islamabad High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 77, Criminal Revisions No. 60 and Civil Revision No. 49-M of 2012, decision Dated: 28-02-2019. Hearing Dated: 03-12-2018.
AAMER FAROOQ, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Ms. Zareen Kanwal (in Criminal Revision No. 60 of 2012).
Respondent(s) by: Kamran Amjad Kayani No.2 (in Criminal Revision No. 60 of 2012).
Criminal Appeal No. 77, Criminal Revisions No. 60 and Civil Revision No. 49-M of 2012, decision Dated: 28-02-2019. Hearing Dated: 03-12-2018.
AAMER FAROOQ, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Ms. Zareen Kanwal (in Criminal Revision No. 60 of 2012).
Respondent(s) by: Kamran Amjad Kayani No.2 (in Criminal Revision No. 60 of 2012).
MUHAMMAD ANWAR AND OTHERS
VS
THE STATE AND OTHERS
Law: Limitation Act, 1908
Section: 5,29
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 249A,417
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 489-F
(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----Ss. 5 & 29---Limitation---Condonation of delay---Scope---If a particular statute provided period of limitation, application under S. 5 of Limitation Act, 1908 for condonation of delay was not maintainable in the light of S. 29 of the Limitation Act, 1908. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 489-F--- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---Ss. 417 & 249-A---Appeal against acquittal---Appreciation of evidence---Complainant lodged FIR against the accused stating that accused had issued cheque to him, which was dishonoured---Trial Court acquitted the accused under S. 249-A, Cr.P.C.---Validity---In the present case, during the course of trial settlement/compromise was tendered in evidence---Prosecution did not allege or prove dishonesty on the part of the accused---Complainant had reiterated the nature of transaction between the parties---Tendering of cheque and dishonouring had been categorically stated by the complained but from the entire reading of his examination-in-chief dishonesty was not borne out---Prosecution had failed to prove the mens rea, which was one of the essential elements, hence, it failed to prove the offence---Conviction recorded against the petitioners were not tenable, hence, merited setting aside---Criminal appeal was allowed and accused were acquitted of the charges, in circumstances. Malik Safdar Ali v. Syed Khalid Ali and 2 others PLD 2012 Sindh 464; Mian Allah Ditta v. The State and others 2013 SCMR 51; Muhammad Afaq Shamsi and 8 others v. National Accountability Court through Chairman National Accountability Bureau and 4 others PLD 2011 Kar. 24 and Messrs Ittefaq Foundries (Pvt.) Limited and 4 others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law, Islamabad and 2 others 2015 CLD 1274 ref. Malik Safdar Ali v. Syed Khalid Ali and 2 others PLD 2012 Sindh 464; Basar Khan v. The State and another 2009 PCr.LJ 964; Shah Fahad and another v. The State 2014 YLR 2241 and Maj. (Retd.) Javed Inayat Khan Kiayni v. The State PLD 2006 Lah. 752 rel. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: AAMER FAROOQ, J.--- This judgment shall decide the instant appeal as well Criminal Revision No.60 of 2012 and…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492