2009 PLP 2178 (YLR)
NASEEM FAROOQ NIAZI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 PLP 2178 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Mushir Alam, J |
| Parties | NASEEM FAROOQ NIAZI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 2178 (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 2009 PLP 2178 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Mushir Alam, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 2178 (YLR) (NASEEM FAROOQ NIAZI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S.498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F
Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of--Counsel for accused had contended that a suit for recovery had also, been filed by the complainant against accused under summary chapter, wherein some deviations appeared to have been made as to the facts leading to the issuance of the cheque
Contention was that a commercial dispute could not be made subject matter of criminal prosecution
Counsel for the complainant had stated that cheque in dispute was issued by accused pursuant to some commercial transaction between the parties
In view of the variation in the facts narrated in the F.I.R. and the facts mentioned in the plaint of the suit in respect of the same transaction, pre-arrest bail already granted to accused was confirmed on the same terms and conditions. Muhammad Afzal Awan for Applicant. Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, A.P - G. for the State. Ch. M. Saeeduz Zaman for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
MUSHIR ALAM, J.
Applicant Naseem Farooq Niazi is facing trial, in Crime No. 67/09 of PS Mithadar under section 489-F, P.P.C. He was admitted to pre-arrest bail on 2-2-2009 on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 100,
000. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the F.I.R the allegations are that the accused against recoverable sum of Rs.1,700,000 for the supplies, issued the subject cheques which were dishonoured on presentation and therefore the said F.I.R was lodged. It was contended by the learned counsel that a suit for recovery has also been filed by the complainant under the summary chapter being Suit No. 19/09 wherein the some deviations appear to have been made as to the facts leading to the issuance of the cheques. It was urged that a commercial dispute cannot be made subject matter of criminal prosecution. Learned counsel for the complainant states that there is no denial of the fact that the said cheques were issued by the applicant pursuant to some commercial transaction between the parties. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case. In view of the variation in the facts narrated in the F.I.R. and the facts mentioned in the plaint of the above suit in respect of the same transaction I would confirm bail already granted to the applicant on the same terms and conditions as mentioned in the order dated 2-2-2009. However, the applicant is to associate with the investigation of the case and to attend the proceedings without fail, otherwise the learned trial Court would be at liberty to cancel the bail. H.B.T./N-21/K Bail confirmed.