2005 PLP 654 (YLR)
AZIZ AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 654 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | AZIZ AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 654 (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 2005 PLP 654 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 654 (YLR) (AZIZ AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tassawar Hussain Qureshi for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 11th May, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 406 & 420‑‑‑Bail before arrest, refusal of‑‑‑Contention of accused was that he had already paid Rs.17 lacs to complainant in two instalments and for remaining amount of Rs.1,17,000 he handed over a cheque to complainant as due to shortage of amount in account, he could not pay said amount to complainant‑‑‑Complainant had submitted that accused had issued a cheque of Rs.18 lacs and 17 thousands and not rupees 1,17,000‑‑‑Complainant had also shown photostat copy of said cheque which could not be encashed because account of accused was dormant‑‑‑Suit for cancellation of document was filed 17 days after lodging F.I.R.‑‑‑No case for bail before arrest having been made out, petition for bail was dismissed. Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan for the Complainant. Muhammad Haris Chaudhry for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Tassawar Hussain Qureshi for Petitioner. Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan for the Complainant. Muhammad Haris Chaudhry for the State. Date of hearing: 11th May, 2004. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had already paid Rupees 17, lacs in two instalments through written agreement, that Rs.1,17,000 was yet to be paid and in this regard a cheque was handed over to the complainant but unfortunately due to shortage of amount in the account of the present petitioner he could not pay the rest of the amount to the complainant, that offence alleged against the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., that petitioner has joined the investigation and that he has filed suit for cancellation of document.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that there was no mala fide on the part of the complainant. He submits that petitioner had issued a cheque of Rupees 18 lac, 17 thousand and not rupees one lac, 17 thousand. Learned counsel for the complainant has also shown me photostat copy of the said cheque which could not be encashed because account was dormant.
3. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before the cheque could be produced in the Bank the payment of Rupees 17 lacs was already made to the complainant.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I had also seen the identity card' of the complainant, he signs in English while on these two documents, which relates to payment of rupees 17 lac he had signed in Urdu. As far as, filing of suit for cancellation of document is concerned, that was filed on 26‑3‑2004 while the F.I.R. was lodged 9‑3‑2004 i.e. 17 days after lodging the F.I.R. No case for bail before arrest is made out, therefore, this petition is dismissed. H.B.T./A‑323/L Bail application dismissed.