2006 PLP 2475 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD JAVED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 2475 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Aslam, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD JAVED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 2475 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 2475 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Aslam, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 2475 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD JAVED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zafar Iqbal Chowhan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 381, 420, 468 & 471
Accused was alleged to have withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,10,000 by forging signatures of Chief Executive Officer of the company
Grandfather of accused had paid back entire amount in dispute
Investigating Officer conceded that he had not obtained signatures of accused for comparison with alleged signatures on the cheque
No steps had been taken to obtain cheque alleged to have been forged by accused
Case of accused was open to further inquiry
Offence with which accused had been charged, fell outside the prohibitory limits of S.497, Cr.P.C.-Accused was admitted to bail. Shahid Masood for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.
The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.163, dated 11-3-2005 registered with Police Station, Sato Katla, Lahore under sections 381/420/468/471, P.P.C., on the ground that total amount of Rs.2,10,000 alleged to have been drawn by the petitioner from the Bank without the permission of the complainant, has been paid back.
2. Learned counsel for the State on instructions from the police officer states that the amount has been paid to the complainant in toto.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. The petitioner is alleged to have withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,10,000 by forging the signatures of the Chief Executive Officer of the company. The grandfather of the petitioner has paid entire amount in dispute back. Investigating Officer concedes that he has not obtained the signatures of the petitioner for comparison with the alleged signatures on the cheque. No steps have been taken to obtain the cheque alleged to have been forged by the petitioner. Case of the petitioner is open to further inquiry. Offence with which the petitioner has been charged falls outside of the prohibitory limits of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnished 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./M-286/L Bail granted.