YLR 2012

2012 PLP 2673 (YLR)

ABDUL NABI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Sindh
Decided Date
Criminal Bail Application No.219 of 2012, decided on 11th June, 2012.
Honorable Judges
Abdul Rasool Memon, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2012 PLP 2673 (YLR)
Forum / Court Sindh
Bench Members Abdul Rasool Memon, J
Parties ABDUL NABI — Applicant 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 2012 PLP 2673 (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 2012 PLP 2673 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: Abdul Rasool Memon, J.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 2673 (YLR) (ABDUL NABI — Applicant 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)

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497(2) & 103

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 489-A, 489-B & 489-C

Counterfeiting bank-notes or currency-notes, using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes, possession of forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Non-association of private witnesses in a thickly-populated area

Use of counterfeit notes not alleged

Effect

Accused was alleged to be in possession of counterfeit currency notes and chemical used for preparation of forged notes

Contentions of the accused were that police had prior information and conducted raid in broad daylight in a thickly-populated area but no person from the public was joined as mashir; that nothing was brought on record to show that counterfeit currency notes were used for buying or selling; that applicability of Ss.489-A, 489-B and 489-C, P.P.C, could be determined at the trial

Validity

Complainant (police) had advance information regarding the offence and as per F.I.R. raid was conducted in a thickly populated area but no witnesses of the locality accompanied the police

Requirement of S. 103, Cr.P.C, had not been complied with

No allegation of any sort existed against the accused that he used the counterfeit notes before any person

Chemical recovered from the place of incident had not been sent to any laboratory to ascertain whether same could be used preparing counterfeit currency

Mere possession of counterfeit currency did not constitute an offence under sections 489-A, 489-B or 489-C, P.P.C, and it was yet to be seen at trial whether alleged offence came within the said sections

Involvement of accused in the offence required further inquiry

Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Muhammad Naeem v. The State 2012 YLR 1228 and Sawab Khan v. The State 1995 PCr.LJ 1351 rel. Muhammad Sajjad v. The State 1996 PCr.LJ 815 and Zafar Iqbal v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 834 ref. Muhammad Iqbal Mahar for Applicant. Altaf Hussain Surahio, State counsel.

Judgment & Decree

ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, J.

By this order, I would like to dispose of an application under section 497, Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of accused Abdul Nabi who is booked in Crime No. 25/2012 Police Station, Kashmore to face his trial under sections 489-A, 489-B and 489-C, P.P.C. As per contents of F.I.R. lodged by complainant HC Liaquat Ali Chandio of Police Station Kashmore, allegation against the present applicant is that he along with co-accused namely Shahoo and Bakhat Ali was found in possession of seven counterfeit currency notes and so also chemical used for preparation of forged notes. Raid was conducted in the otaq of co-accused Shahoo where all the three persons along with two unknown persons were sitting. On reaching, police party found the alleged currency notes lying on the earth near the accused. Case has been challaned and accused are facing trial in the court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kashmore. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that, co-accused Bakhat whose case is identical to that of present applicant, has been let oft by the police during investigation and his name has been placed in Column No.2 of the challan. He has contended that the alleged offence has taken place in a broad-day-light at 1400 hours in thickly-populated area but no person from public has been joined as mashir in support of his contention he has placed reliance on a case reported as Muhammad Naeem v. The State (2012 YLR 1228). He further adds that simply it is alleged that counterfeit currency notes were found lying on the earth in the otaq of accused Shahoo and nothing is brought on record that the said notes/counterfeit currency notes were used for selling or buying by the present applicant. Therefore, the case of present applicant does not come within the ambit of section 489-B, P.P.C. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the case of Muhammad Sajjad v. The State (1996 PCr.LJ 815) and Zafar Iqbal v. The State (2000 PCr.LJ 834). He has further contended that applicability of section 489-A, B and C is to be determined at trial and at this stage its application requires further enquiry. He has contended that the same dictum has been laid down in the case of Sawab Khan v. The State (1995 PCr.LJ 1351). He prays for grant of bail to the applicant. The learned State counsel has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant. It is an admitted fact on record that the complainant had an advance information received on mobile telephone regarding the presence of accused at the otaq of Shahoo and as per contents of F.I.R. the said Otaq is situated in a thickly-populated area but he did not accompany witnesses of the locality. Learned State counsel admits that mashirs of recovery are police official. It appears that the requirement of section 103, Cr.P.C. has not been complied with. Moreover there is no allegation of any sort against the present applicant that he used the said currency as genuine before any person. Moreover the alleged chemical recovered from the place of wardat has not been sent to any laboratory to ascertain whether said chemical can be used for the purpose of preparing counterfeit currency. In these circumstances, the involvement of present applicant requires further enquiry. Moreover, mere possession of the counterfeit currency does not constitute an offence under section 489-A or B, P.P.C. Reliance is placed on a cases of Muhammad Naeem and Sawab Khan (Supra). In view of the above circumstances, it is yet to be seen at trial whether the present applicant participated in the commission of the alleged offence and whether the alleged offence comes within the meaning of section 489-A, B or C. Considering all the above facts I admit the applicant to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 with P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. MWA/A-71/K Bail granted.