2008 PLP 1489 (MLD)
SAJID SAEED HUSSAIN SINDHU — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1489 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SAJID SAEED HUSSAIN SINDHU — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1489 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 1489 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 1489 (MLD) (SAJID SAEED HUSSAIN SINDHU — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shoaib Zafar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F
Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of
Accused had lodged F.I.R. against his ex-employee for stealing some cheques including the one which was subject matter of the case
Documents on the record had revealed that accused had intimated the bank regarding theft of cheques and had also instructed the bank not to encash cheques including the one issued in the name of the complainant
Prima facie the assertion of accused that cheques had been stolen, appeared to be correct
Cheque in question was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison of signatures of accused and the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory revealed that signatures on the cheque in question did not tally with the specimen signatures of accused
Said negative report had implied that prima facie the cheque in question was not issued/signed by the accused
Offence under S.489-F, P.P.C. being punishable with a maximum sentence of three years, did not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Since the evidence was documentary in nature, which had already been taken in possession by the police, the corpus of accused was not required by the police for the purpose of investigation
Ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to accused, was confirmed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
TARIQ SHAMIM, J.
Through this petition, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.587 of 2007, dated 11-92007, for offence under section 489-F, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Faisalabad.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the cheque issued by the petitioner in the name of the complainant was dishonoured when presented to the Bank for encashment.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a number of cheques of the petitioner were stolen and in the said regard concerned Bank had also been intimated; that the cheque was not issued by the petitioner; that the offence does not attract the prohibitory clause of section 489-F, P.P.C. and that the petitioner was not required for any further investigation, therefore, he is entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail.
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General has vehemently opposed the petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. The petitioner lodged case F.I.R. No. 1202 of 2007 at Police Station Factory Area, Faisalabad against Rana Zahid, his ex-employee for stealing some cheques including the one which is subject-matter of the instant case. The documents on the record reveal that the petitioner had intimated the Bank regarding theft of cheques and had also instructed the Bank not to encash cheques including the one issued in the name of the complainant. Prima facie the assertion of the petitioner that cheque had been stolen appears to be correct. Further, the cheque in question was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison of signatures of the petitioner and the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, dated 13-12-2007 reveals that the signatures on the cheque in question does not tally with the specimen signatures of the petitioner. Thus, the report has been returned in the negative which implies that prima facie the cheque in question was not issued/signed by the petitioner. Offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. is punishable with a maximum sentence of three years, therefore, it does not fall within the ambit of the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Since the evidence is documentary in nature which has already been taken into possession by the police, therefore, the corpus of the petitioner is not required by the police for the purpose of investigation.
7. For what has been stated above, this petition is accepted and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner vide order, dated 29-10-2007 is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./S-201/L Bail confirmed.