| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 1167 2022 SLD 1167 2022 SCMR 1467 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition No. 186-L of 2022, decision dated: 31st March, 2022, hearing date: 31st March, 2022. (On appeal against the order dated 20.01.2022 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Misc. No. 77550 of 2021)
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, C.J., SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JUSTICE
Zulfiqar Ali Dhuddi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Amjad Ali Chattha, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant. Khurram Khan, Additional P.G., Hameed Virk, DSP and Mukhtar Ahmed, SHO for the State.
Criminal Petition No. 186-L of 2022, decision dated: 31st March, 2022, hearing date: 31st March, 2022. (On appeal against the order dated 20.01.2022 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Misc. No. 77550 of 2021)
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, C.J., SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JUSTICE
Zulfiqar Ali Dhuddi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Amjad Ali Chattha, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant. Khurram Khan, Additional P.G., Hameed Virk, DSP and Mukhtar Ahmed, SHO for the State.
NAZIR AHMAD ALIAS BHAGA
VS
THE STATE AND OTHERS
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 497(2)
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 489-F
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 185(3)
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Accused allegedly purchased six cars worth Rs.117,00,000 (rupees one crore seventeen lacs) from the complainant and paid Rs.17,00,000 in advance in cash whereas for the rest of the amount i.e. Rs.100,00,000 (rupees one crore) he gave a cheque to him, which was dishonoured when presented to the Bank---Accused contended that he neither received any car nor gave the disputed cheque to the complainant; that he gave blank cheque of the amount in question to a third person for purchase of a bungalow, which was now being utilized against him---Validity---As per the contents of the crime report, the accused and the complainant had business ties---Counsel for the complainant admitted that the complainant did not have the receipt for the alleged sale of cars---Question as to whether the accused purchased the cars and issued the cheque in question to the complainant was a question which would be resolved by the Trial Court after recording of evidence---Accused was behind the bars for more than four months and the maximum punishment provided under the statute for the offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. was three years and the same also did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.---Case against the accused squarely fell within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into his guilt---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and accused was granted bail. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 489-F---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVII---Section 489-F of P.P.C.---Purpose---Section 489-F of P.P.C. is not a provision, which is intended by the Legislature to be used for recovery of an alleged amount, rather for recovery of any amount, civil proceedings provide remedies, inter alia, under Order XXXVII of C.P.C. Abdul Saboor v. The State 2022 SCMR 592 ref. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Bail, grant of---Offences not falling within the prohibitory clause---Scope---Grant of bail…
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