| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2008 SLG 2710 2008 SLD 2710 2008 PLD 305 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. S-20 of 2008, decided on 26th March, 2008
ABDUR RAHMAN FARUQ PIRZADA, J
Basharat Ahmed Jatt for Applicant. Pirbhulal-u-Goklani for
Respondent No. 1. Rasheed A. Qureshi. Asstt. A.G. for
Respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. S-20 of 2008, decided on 26th March, 2008
ABDUR RAHMAN FARUQ PIRZADA, J
Basharat Ahmed Jatt for Applicant. Pirbhulal-u-Goklani for
Respondent No. 1. Rasheed A. Qureshi. Asstt. A.G. for
Respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
Syed HASSAN RAZA--Applicant
VS
DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH and others
Law:
Section:
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 489-F, 504 & 506(2)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.173---Magistrate while disagreeing with the summary report submitted by the Investigating Officer with the recommendation for disposal of the case under "B" Class, had directed the Investigating Officer to submit the charge sheet under S.173, Cr.P.C. before the Court having jurisdiction---Validity---Accused admittedly had issued the cheque for the amount of Rs.1,97,000 in the name of the complainant, which was subsequently dishonoured---Accused had himself instructed the Manager of the Bank concerned to stop payment of the said cheque through a letter, as the payment had already been made to the complainant in cash---Accused took a contradictory stand subsequently when he wrote a letter to complainant acknowledging that the amount of Rs.1,97,000 was still outstanding and he requested the complainant to get the payment of the said cheque from the Bank---Bank informed the accused by means of a letter that the payment of the said cheque to complainant was still stopped as per instruction of the accused and the complainant once again was put at disadvantage---Said contradictory stand taken by the accused while dealing with the complainant had, prima facie, made out a case under S.489-F, P.P.C.---Magistrate under S.173, Cr.P.C. while taking cognizance of the case was competent to apply his judicious mind to the summary report and then to pass the order---Impugned order revealed that it appeared from the police papers that the investigating team had disposed of the case under `B' (false) class on account of statements of the defence witnesses---Record, however, showed that the accused had given the cheque, which was bounced for want of arrangement, as was also clear from the Bank record---Accused had not denied his signatures on the cheque issued to the complainant and such prima facie evidence could not be brushed aside---Impugned order did not suffer form any illegality---Petition was dismissed accordingly. Farooq Sumar and others v. The State 2005 CLJ 219 ref. ORDER ABDUR RAHMAN FARUQ PIRZADA, J.---By this application the applicant has impugned the order dated…
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