YLR 2006

2006 PLP 961 (YLR)

ZULFIQAR HAIDER — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.7504-B of 2005, decided on 30th November, 2005.
Honorable Judges
Sh. Abdur Rashid, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2006 PLP 961 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Sh. Abdur Rashid, J
Parties ZULFIQAR HAIDER — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 961 (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 961 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sh. Abdur Rashid, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 961 (YLR) (ZULFIQAR HAIDER — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Shehar Yar Sheikh and Pervez I. Mir for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S.497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F

Bail, grant of-Cheque in question was allegedly issued by the accused on 13-1-2005 which was presented for encashment on 20-6-2004 and was dishonoured by the Bank

Said cheque was not included in the cheques mentioned in the F.I.R. which the accused had allegedly issued to the complainant in lieu of pecuniary liability

Cheque was initially issued on 13-1-2002, but subsequently the figure 2 had been converted into 4 with same initials

On the initial date of issue of the cheque the offence under S.489-F, P.P.C. was not on the Statute Book as the same was created on 25-10-2002

Purpose for which the cheque in question had been issued by the accused to the complainant was a matter of further inquiry

Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances. Tariq Waheed Khan for the State. Manzoor Ahmad, S.-I. with Record.

Judgment & Decree

SH. ABDUR RASHID, J.

The petitioner through this petition seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.277 of 2005, dated 30-7-2005, under section 489-F, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Kotwali, Gujranwala.

2. According to the prosecution allegations stipulated in the F.I.R. the petitioner approached Malik Muhammad Saeed who deals in Hosiery Goods for the purchase of said goods and it was agreed between the parties that the complainant would supply him Hosiery Goods worth of Rs.1,500,000 and the petitioner gave him 15 cheques of Rs.1,00,000 each of different dates. The first cheque was to be encashed on 13-1-2005. However, the complainant presented the said cheque on 20-1-2004 which was dishonoured and the complainant thereafter contacted the petitioner who gave him threats of dire consequences obliging the petitioner to report the matter to the police and consequently this case was registered. 3. it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that according to the contents of the F.I.R. the first cheque was to be encashed on 13-1-2005, but the same was presented for encashment a year prior to its issue i.e. 20-1-2004 and the said cheque bears No.25619566 and all the cheques which the petitioner allegedly issued to the complainant in lieu of goods have been described in the F.I.R. and the said cheque is not included in them and therefore, it cannot be alleged that the cheque which was not encashed was issued by the petitioner to the complainant in lieu of any pecuniary liability. It has also been argued that the Cheque No.25619566 was issued on 13-1-2002 and *subsequently the figure of 2 had been converted into 4 by the complainant himself and on the date of issue of said cheque the offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. had not been created. It has also argued that the complainant did not produce the other cheques which have been mentioned in the F.I.R. to support the factum that he had business transaction with the petitioner and the said cheques had been issued in lieu of any pecuniary liability.

4. During investigation of this case, the complainant produced Cheque No.25619566 which had been allegedly issued by the petitioner on 13-1-2005 and was presented for encashment on 20-6-2004 and was dishonoured. The number of this cheque is not included in the numbers of the cheques mentioned in the F.I.R. which the petitioner allegedly issued to the complainant in lieu of pecuniary liability therefore, the fact that for which purpose this cheque had been issued by the petitioner to the complainant is a matter of further inquiry. This cheque was initially issued on 13-1-2002 and subsequently the figure 2 had been converted into 4 with some initials. On the initial date of issue of Cheque No.25619566 the offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. was not on the Statute Book as this offence had been created on 25-10-2002.

5. In view of these facts, it is, prima facie, apparent that the cheque allegedly dishonoured firstly was not issued in lieu of any pecuniary liability and secondly it pertains to the date when this offence had not been created. Thereafter, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N.H.Q./Z-3/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail allowed.