Case Details

Citation(s)
2024 SLG 178 2024 SLD 178 2024 PCRLJ 165
Lahore High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8564/M of 2022, heard on 26th May, 2022.Date of hearing: 26th May, 2022.
Before Tariq Saleem Sheikh, J
Ijaz Feroze and Zia Ullah Khan for Petitioner. Rana Tasawar Ali Khan, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Abdul Khaliq Safrani and Muhammad Awais Riaz for
Respondent No. 2.

AHMAD FARAN SABIR---Petitioner

VS

The STATE and others---Respondents

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 249-A,561-A

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 489-F

Law: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Section: 118

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 249-A & 561-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F---Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), Ss. 5 & 118---Presumptions as to negotiable instrument---Petitioner moved an application under S. 249-A, Cr.P.C., before the Trial Court for his acquittal claiming that the charge against him was groundless and there was no probability of him being convicted of any offence---Said application was dismissed---Decision of the Trial Court was upheld in revision by the Revisional Court---Validity---Petitioner had neither denied his signature on Cheque in question nor the fact that it was drawn on his account---Petitioner had challenged its validity on the premise that it did not conform to the requirements of S. 5 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881---Cheque in question contained the expression "Pay cash or bearer"---In view of the said discourse, the contention was repelled---Allegedly, police had found defence plea of petitioner correct during investigation, which might help him during the trial but not at present stage---Investigating Officer had the mandate only to collect the evidence pertaining to the case he was investigating and to dig out the truth and then submit report in terms of S. 173, Cr.P.C.---Said report, however, was not a piece of evidence itself---If the cheque said "pay cash" and the words "or bearer" were not scored off, the person in possession of the instrument would be presumed to be a holder in due course---In the instant case, respondent No. 2 (complainant) enjoyed the same presumption in respect of Cheque in question which could be rebutted at a regular trial where the parties have equal opportunity to adduce evidence to prove their respective claims and test the credibility of the witnesses of the other side through cross-examination---Sole opinion of the Investigating Officer could not negate that presumption---Section 249-A, Cr.P.C., reflected a compromise between the collective good of the society and the rights of an individual offender---Idea was to spare the offender the rigors of full trial if the Court at any stage found that the charge was groundless and the prosecution…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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