2021 PCrLJ 145
a). S. 489-F-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 241-A& 439- shonestly issuing a cheque---High Court's power of revision---Supply of statements and documents to the accused---Scope---Allegation against accused was that he and complainant entered into a sale transaction of a plot; complainant paid the whole amount of consideration but the accused failed to transfer the subject plot and on demand of amount, the accused issued a cheque, which on presentation was dishonoured---Document showing sale transaction was relied upon as prosecution evidence but it was not part of prosecution record nor was it supplied to the accused äs required under S. 241-A, Cr.P.C.--- Trial Court had erred while exhibiting the document abruptly produced -by complainant in his cross-examination---Neither such document could be tendered in evidence nor could it be used against the accused in evidence which was excluded by the High Court from evidence-- High Court observed that since appraisal of evidence at the revisional. stage was improper and unjustified, therefore, case was remanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh.
b). Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- --S. 489-F---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 75, 76 & 162-- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439---Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Proof of documents by primary evidence--Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given---No new trial for improper admission or rejection of evidence---High Court's power of revision---Non-production of original cheque and original dishonour slip--Effect---Allegation against accused was that he had issued a cheque which was dishonored---Prosecution had mainly relied on photocopies of cheque and dishonour slip---Said documents were improperly received in evidence without production of their originals and the conditions pre-requisite for permitting secondary evidence were wanting---Mere consent or omission to object to the reception of inadmissible evidence did not make the evidence legal and valid because departure from the said rule had substantial effect on the decision of the courts below, which, if excluded, might have resulted in varying the decision---High Court observed that since appraisal of evidence at the revisional stage was improper and unjustified therefore, cáse was remanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh
0 Comments