Dishonestly issuing cheques

2017 PCrLJ 1305 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 489-FCriminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417(2-A)Dishonestly issuing chequesAppreciation of evidenceAppeal against acquittal

Prosecution case was that the accused issued two cheques worth Rs. 4,00,000 and 6,00,000 respectively but were dishonoured when presented to the Bank, for insufficient funds

Complainant during cross-examination stated that there was some compromise between the parties in another case and accused had paid him an amount of Rs. 1,00,000 out of Rs. 3,00,000 as agreed

Said fact was not mentioned in the FIR

Witness who described his status as mediator, stated that he arranged settlement of the dispute of the parties and it was decided that accused would pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000

Accused issued two cheques, which were deposited in his account as the complainant had no bank account

Settlement was in writing

Statement of witness was in total negation of the statement of complainant, which lessened the credibility of the both

Investigating Officer had negated the statement of witness

Prosecution failed to meet the requirements of constituting an offence

Dishonest intent on part of the accused was missing

Issuance of cheques though asserted and not denied, but the purpose for its issuance was neither to repay a loan or to fulfil an obligation, to bring it within the ambit of "offence"

Settlement deed stated a new story, which was contrary to the statement of complainant and his witness, thus un-reliable and not worthy of consideration

Circum-stances established that complainant failed to point out any illegality in the judgment passed by the Trial Court, or the instances whereby the available material was mis-appreciated or not appreciated

Appeal against acquittal was therefore, dismissed.

2015 MLD 1151 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 489-FCriminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.22-A, 22-B & 179Police Rules, 1934, R.25(4)Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitution petitionDishonestly issuing chequesPowers and functions of Justice of PeaceRegistration of FIRJurisdiction of CourtCheques issued were presented where same were dishonoured

SHO concerned having refused to register FIR against the respondent, petitioner filed application under S.22-A, Cr.P.C. which was dismissed by the Justice of Peace vide impugned order on the sole ground of jurisdiction

Validity

Ingredients of offence under S.489-F, P.P.C., against accused prima facie, being present, it would not be just to stifle the criminal proceedings at the initial stage

When the cheques were dishonoured the offence was completed at the place where cheques were dishonoured

Under provisions of S.179, Cr.P.C., when any person committed any offence, or did some act, and due to that act any consequence ensued, such offence could be inquired into or tried by the court where the act was done, or the consequence ensued

Provision of S.179, Cr.P.C. was totally ignored, or escaped un-noticed from the Trial Court, while passing impugned order

Petitioner could not be made to suffer merely on the ground that he had not initiated criminal proceedings at the place wherefrom the cheques were issued

Exercise carried out by Justice of Peace was beyond the scope of S.22-A, Cr.P.C.

Function of the Justice of Peace, was to check whether the statement of the complainant intimating or informing the commission of any cognizable offence was recorded or not

Justice of Peace could not touch the merits of the case, or to give certain direction, which were beyond the scope of powers and jurisdiction

Justice of Peace could not determine point of jurisdiction, which should have been left opened for SHO concerned to apply his own independent mind

Impugned order passed by Justice of Peace, was set aside

SHO was directed to lodge the FIR as per statement of the petitioners against proposed accused strictly in accordance with law.

2014 PCrLJ 1517 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 489-FDishonestly issuing chequesAppreciation of evidenceRetrospective effect of S.489-F, P.P.C.Scope

Trial Court acquitted accused on the ground that provision of S.489-F, P.P.C. was not promulgated at the time of commission of offence

Validity

At the time of issuance of disputed cheques, law did not exist for taking cognizance in respect of issuance of negotiable instrument drawn dishonestly and to avoid liability but it existed at the time of availing remedy before the Court, that was why F.I.R. was registered under S.489-F, P.P.C., much after promulgation of law

Lis should be dealt with in accordance with law available at the time of accrual of right to sue in favour of a person

Although right to sue in favour of complainant existed on the date of issuance of cheques yet he did not set into motion the criminal machinery at that time, thus valuable right had accrued in favour of accused, of which he could not be deprived due to indolence of complainant

Trial Court keeping in view the fact that S.489-F, P.P.C. had no retrospective effect and was prospective in nature, did not commit any illegality nor order of acquittal was perverse or against canons of law, therefore, the same was maintained

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.