 |
| 489-F PPC – Cheque Dishonour case in Pakistan- Case Law on 489-F PPC |
In the name of ALLAH, the most beneficent, the most
merciful
489-F PPC – Cheque Dishonour case in Pakistan- Case Law on 489-F
PPC
489-F
is an offence of Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), which is attracted / applicable in
case of dishonouring / bouncing of a cheque given dishonestly against repayment
of loan or fulfillment of an obligation.
The
court takes into consideration bundle of things at the time of granting bail or
rejecting the bail stage and at the time of acquitting or convicting the
accused
Following
are few reported judgments / case laws on 489-F PPC.
Pre
Arrest bail granted in 489-F PPC
2021 MLD 4
[
Before Sadiq Mahmud Khurram, J
ATTIQUE AHMAD---Petitioner
Versus
The STATE and
another---Respondents
--Cheque
was issued to the complainant for the consideration that he would take back the
suit filed by him against the accused and not for repayment of a loan or fulfillment
of any monetary obligation---Whether liability of the accused for the alleged
offence was punishable under S.489-F, P.P.C. would be determined by the Trial
Court after recording of evidence---Investigation of the case had already been concluded---Sending
the accused behind the bars would not serve any useful purpose and would cause
irreparable loss to his reputation---Petition for grant of pre-arrest bail was
allowed, in circumstances.
(Ad
interim pre arrest bail confirmed)
2020 S C M R 861
[Supreme Court of
Present: Qazi Faez Isa and Sardar Tariq Masood, JJ
ABDUL GHAFOOR GONDAL---Petitioner
Versus
The STATE through P.G. Punjab and another---Respondents
The
learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Bank's witness in his statement
under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("the Code") has stated
that the signature on the said cheque does not match with the petitioner' signature
in Bank's record. He further states that the FIR was lodged after an inordinate
delay of five years and no plausible explanation for the said delay has been
given in the FIR. He states that under the circumstances it is a clear case of malicious
and malafide FIR and the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail to protect
him from undue harassment and humiliation.
The
learned counsel for the complainant has not been able to satisfactorily controvert
the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The case is one of
further enquiry and the probability of humiliating the petitioner and by belatedly
lodging of FIR cannot be ruled out at this stage.
(Ad
interim pre arrest bail confirmed)
2020 Y L R 2064
[
Before Tariq Saleem Sheikh, J
NOOR AHMAD---Petitioner
Versus
The
STATE and others---Respondents
Delay
in presenting cheque---Stale/out of date cheque---Accused raised the plea that
the cheque relied upon by complainant was presented one year after it was issued
and no case could be registered against him---Validity---Cheque that was presented
beyond six months from the date of issuance was generally regarded as 'stale'
or 'out of date'---Bank was not obliged to honour such cheque unless instructed
by account holder otherwise---Glossary issued by State Bank of Pakistan in
Banking could be reckoned as an authentic reflection of 'usage of trade and of bankers'
contemplated in S.84(2) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881---Cheque was out of
date and complainant knew that it would not be encashed even then he presented
it merely to bring the case against accused under S.489-F, P.P.C.---Case against
accused was one of further inquiry---Pre-arrest bail was confirmed, in circumstances.
(Ad
interim pre arrest bail confirmed)
2021
MLD 589
[Sindh
High Court]
Before
Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui, J
TARIQ
SHAFI----Applicant
Versus
The
STATE----Respondent
Business transaction---Cheque as
security---Complainant gave money to the accused on monthly profit basis who
subsequently avoided to pay profit---On demand by complainant, accused gave
cheques which were dishonoured---Accused contended that cheques were given as
security---Validity---Held, accused was not a licensed money lender, giving
amount on profit to him was irrational and dubious---Business transaction was
admitted---Contention by the accused that the cheques were issued as security
appeared to be logical---Cheques were returned to the complainant on account
being dormant, Bank had not mentioned that there were insufficient
funds---Ingredient of dishonesty was a condition precedent to attract provision
of S.489-F, P.P.C., which was missing in the present case---Interim bail
granted to the accused was confirmed, in circumstances
(Ad
interim pre arrest bail confirmed)
P L D 2020 Lahore 97
Before
Anwaarul Haq Pannun, J
SALMAN
KHALID---Petitioner
Versus
The
STATE and others---Respondents
Accused submitted affidavit stating that he
was ready to pay the amount of cheque by certain date and in case of his failure
in dishonouring his commitment, he would not be entitled to enjoy the right of
bail---Offence under S.489-F, P.P.C., being cognizable and compoundable, considering
the compounding character of offence, court seized with bail application, may
extend concession of bail---If the accused did not honour his commitment in
terms of compromise accused would lose his right to enjoy concession of
bail---Bail was granted accordingly.
(Bail Granted)
Post
Arrest bail granted in 489-F PPC
2020
YLR Note 22
[
Before
Sadiq Mahmud Khurram, J
MUHAMMAD
SHABBIR---Petitioner
Versus
The
STATE and others---Respondents
Delayed FIR---Documentary
evidence---Scope---Accused was alleged to have drawn a cheque in favour of the
complainant, which on presentation before the concerned Bank was
dishonoured---First Information Report was registered after delay for which no
explanation was mentioned---Case against accused was entirely reliant on
documentary evidence which admittedly was in the possession of the prosecution
and clearly there was no possibility of the accused tampering with the
same---Petition for grant of bail was allowed and the accused was admitted to
post-arrest bail.
(Bail after arrest granted)
Post
Arrest bail refused in 489-F PPC
2018
Y L R Note 168
[Sindh]
Before
Aftab Ahmed Gorar, J
ASHRAF
SIDDIQUI---Applicant
Versus
The
STATE---Respondent
Accused was allegedly involved in extracting
huge money from the complainant for sending him abroad on work permit---Accused
also issued cheques against the received amount which were dishonoured--- Validity---Accused
had intentionally and knowingly issued cheques against in favour of the
complainant which on presentation were dishonoured---Act of cheating and fraud
as committed by the accused with the complainant would not appeal to the
prudent mind that accused had been falsely implicated in the present case with
ulterior motive---Accused had defrauded the complainant by extorting huge
amount in the name of permit visa abroad but the failed to abide by his offer
as agreed between complainant and the accused---Sufficient material was
available with the prosecution which connected the accused with the commission
of alleged offence---Offence envisaged under sub-clause (b) of S.22 of
Emigration Ordinance, 1979 provided fourteen years punishment and would fall
within the purview of prohibitory clause of subsection(1) of S.497,
Cr.P.C.---Bail was refused accordingly.
(Bail
refused)
Criminal Revision in
489-F PPC
2021
P Cr. L J 145
[
Before
Ghulam Azam Qambrani, J
GULRAIZ---Petitioner
Versus
The
STATE and another---Respondents
Original
Cheque was not produced.
(Criminal
Revision was partly accepted and case remanded)
Criminal Appeal against
Acquittal in 489-F PPC
2021
P Cr. L J 669
[
Before
Ghulam Azam Qambrani, J
ANWAAR-UL-HAQ---Appellant
Versus
The
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, P.S. RAMNA,
Mere
issuance of a cheque and its being dishonoured by itself was not an offence,
unless and until dishonesty on the part of a payer was proved.
(Criminal
Appeal was dismissed)
2021 Y L R 324
[Sindh]
Before Abdul Maalik Gaddi, J
MUHAMMAD ASIF---Appellant
Versus
TANVEER IQBAL and 2 others---Respondents
Nothing
was available on record to prove that the accused was operating the concerned
Bank account and whether signature on the alleged cheque pertained to the accused---Bank
Manager was not examined---Prosecution evidence was based on hearsay which
could not be relied upon for conviction.
(Criminal
Appeal was dismissed)