- That cheque in question was issued only as a guarantee for a person who had dealing with complainant/petitioner---Cheque in dispute had been issued by respondent in favour of petitioner, which was presented before the Bank, twice, but same was dishonoured each time due to insufficiency of funds and prima facie offence under S. 489-F, P.P.C. was made out ---Whether cheque in dispute had been issued as a guarantor or towards repayment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation required recording of evidence and it was the function of the Court to decide whether there was some element of dishonesty on the part of executant of the cheque---Magistrate had agreed with the police report through impugned order in a mechanical manner and he appeared to have not applied judicial mind to consider the facts of the case---Impugned order though was an executive order, but Magistrate was to pass speaking order and he, in no way, was bound by the police opinion to agree with the same---Police opinion was not binding on the Court---Magistrate did not properly exercise jurisdiction vested in him, which had rendered impugned order illegal and without jurisdiction---High Court being competent to interfere therewith, constitutional petition was accepted and impugned order was set aside, with direction to remand case to Magistrate, who would pass fresh orders on cancellation report, submitted by the police within specified period.
2007 YLR 518 [Lahore]
Before Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, J
Section 489-F PPC.
0 Comments