| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 4231 = 2026 SLD 4231 = 2026 YLR 1167 |
Sindh High Court, Hyderabad Bench
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. S-206 of 2021, decided on 13th November, 2025.
Presented By: Muhammad Hasan (Akbar), J
The State v. Abdul Khaliq and others PLD 2011 SC 554; Ghulam Sikandar v. Mumrez Khan PLD 1985 SC 11; Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345; Muhammad Asghar and another v. The State PLD 1994 SC 301; Mirza Noor Hussain v. Farooq Zaman and 2 others 1993 SCMR 305 and Yar Muhammad and 3 others v. The State 1992 SCMR 96 rel. Ms. Sana Memon, Assistant Prosecutor General for the State.
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. S-206 of 2021, decided on 13th November, 2025.
Presented By: Muhammad Hasan (Akbar), J
The State v. Abdul Khaliq and others PLD 2011 SC 554; Ghulam Sikandar v. Mumrez Khan PLD 1985 SC 11; Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345; Muhammad Asghar and another v. The State PLD 1994 SC 301; Mirza Noor Hussain v. Farooq Zaman and 2 others 1993 SCMR 305 and Yar Muhammad and 3 others v. The State 1992 SCMR 96 rel. Ms. Sana Memon, Assistant Prosecutor General for the State.
IMAM ALI SHAH---Appellant
VERSUS
INDERYAS MASIH---Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 489-F
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 417(2-A)
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S. 489-F---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417(2-A)---Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Accused was charged for issuing a cheque in favour of complainant, which was dishonoured when presented before the concerned bank---In his examination in chief, complainant disclosed that after registration of FIR, an agreement was executed between the complainant and the accused---Prosecution also examined son of the complainant---Complainant stated in his cross-examination that he had no connection with the brother-in-law of the accused---Prosecution had examined son of complainant, the main witness of the alleged agreement, who had failed to depose in his examination-in-chief regarding the execution of any agreement between complainant/his father and the accused in his presence---Complainant also admitted in his cross-examination that an agreement was reached between him and the accused at the police station, wherein it was agreed that the accused had to repay his amount, after getting the same from various persons---It was alleged by accused that the main business of the complainant was to lend money on interest (sood ka karobar) and in that regard, he had already lodged multiple cases of the same type against various persons---Said fact showed that same sort of applications of dishonoured cheques, with different stories, had been filed by the complainant---Complainant had failed to bring forward any reliable proof, which could substantiate that the subject cheque in the present case was an investment in the handicraft business of alleged exporter---Complainant was therefore unable to establish the existence of any 'obligation' against the accused and because of which the complainant was unable to establish dishonest issuance of the cheque by the accused---Obligation and the element of dishonesty, which were primarily required to be established by the complainant beyond a reasonable doubt, remained un-established---Admittedly per the complainant's story, the business of sale and export of handicrafts was that of alleged exporter, and not of the accused and therefore, no…