2021 PLP 1466 (SCMR)
Syed HASNAIN HAIDER — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2021 PLP 1466 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Umar Ata Bandial, Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | Syed HASNAIN HAIDER — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2021 PLP 1466 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2021 PLP 1466 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Umar Ata Bandial, Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2021 PLP 1466 (SCMR) (Syed HASNAIN HAIDER — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Tayyab Nasir Mehmood, Advocate Supreme Court (video link at Lahore) along with Syed Husnain Haider, in person (at Islamabad) for Petitioner.
- Ch. Muhammad Maqsood Butter, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the Lahore High Court of Lahore in Crl. Misc. No.19186-B of 2021)
S. 497
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F
Plea of accused that the dishonored cheques were only issued as a security instrument/surety to settle a family dispute
Bank cheques admittedly belonged to the accused
Accused had not been able to point out, even obliquely, to any clause of contract/agreement or any portion thereof, in performance whereof, the accused purportedly stood surety
Supported by statutory presumption of being a valid instrument, a drawer could not ward off the consequences of its failure through a plea of being an unsuspecting surety
Even otherwise, within the family fold in a close degree, the accused has not been able to point out any mala fide or animosity, possibly lurking behind his arrest in a non-bailable/cognizable offence
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, leave was refused and accused was refused bail.
Judgment & Decree
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.
In a family breach, the petitioner has been blamed by the complainant, no other than a close relative, to have issued him two bank cheques, to the tune of rupees one crore forty-seven lac, towards fulfillment of a financial obligation, arisen out of a botched sale transaction relating to some piece of land, bounced upon presentation; avoiding arrest for a considerable span of time, he has finally been declined judicial protection by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of Lahore High Court vide order dated 31.3.2021 to argue before us that in the absence of any subsisting 'financial obligation' he had handed over the cheques to his brother Syed Zulqarnain as security instrument for the settlement of family feud, fraudulently taken over by the complainant, cancellation whereof, is being pursued through a declaratory suit, sub judice in a Civil Court at Chunian till date, a position vehemently contested by the learned Law Officer with the assistance of counsel for the complainant.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. The impugned instruments admittedly belonged to the petitioner; these carry a wording on their back as "shorty", however, the learned counsel despite his best attempt has not been able to point out, even obliquely, any clause of contract/agreement or any portion thereof, in performance whereof, the petitioner purportedly stood surety. Supported by statutory presumption of being a valid instrument, a drawer cannot ward off the consequences of its failure through bald plea of being an unsuspecting surety. Even otherwise, within the family fold in a close degree, the petitioner has not been able to point out any mala fide or animus, possibly lurking behind his long due arrest in a non-bailable/cognizable offence, a sine qua non to divert the usual course of criminal law. View concurrently taken by the courts below being well within the remit of law calls for no interference. Petition fails. Leave declined. MWA/H-8/SC Bail refused.