PLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1325
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497(2)--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F--Bail after arrest, grant of--Further inquiry--Allegation of--Dishonoured of cheque--For invoking Section 489-F, PPC, mere issuance of cheque or its dishonouring is not sufficient rather first of all it must have been proved that cheque was issued for re-payment of loan or fulfillment of obligation, meaning thereby that there must be material available on record to show said obligation--Case of prosecution is that petitioner has been obtaining oil etc. from company of complainant and for payment of same i.e. for purpose of fulfillment of said obligation, impugned cheque was issued, however, Deputy Prosecutor General, on Court’s query/under instructions of police official present in Court and after himself going through available record apprises that neither any khata register nor receipt nor any other document showing buying/receiving of oil etc. (mentioned above) by petitioner from company of complainant, has been produced by complainant or even otherwise brought on record to establish said obligation, therefore, at present, applicability of Section: 489-F, PPC in case is a matter of further probe and case of prosecution against petitioner falls in ambit of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C.--Bail was allowed.
[P. 1327] A
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
----S. 489-F--Punishment for S. 489-F, PPC-- As far as question of huge amount involved in case is concerned, suffice it to say that punishment for offence under Section: 489-F, PPC is three ears, or fine, or with both irrespective of big amount and of course said punishment does not fall within ambit of prohibition contained in Section 497, Cr.P.C.; it goes without saying that in such like cases grant of bail is a rule whereas its refusal is an exception and learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for complainant could not refer any material to bring case of petitioner in said exception--Section 489-F, PPC cannot be used as a tool for purpose of recovery of amount--Deputy Prosecutor General has further apprised that petitioner was arrested in case on 27.10.2020, sent to jail on 28.10.2020 and is behind bars since then--Challan report already stands submitted in concerned Court; no useful purpose would be served to case of prosecution by keeping petitioner in jail for an indefinite period. [Pp. 1327 & 1328] B
M/s. Sayyed Zia Haider Zaidi, Ijaz Ahmad Lodhi and Iftikhar Ibrahim Qureshi, Advocates for Petitioner.
Mr. Ansar Yaseen, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Mr. Aurangzeb Khan Balouch, Advocate for Complainant/ Respondent No. 2.
Date of hearing: 3.3.2021.
PLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1325
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Farooq Haider, J.
MUHAMMAD IKRAM--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 7592-B of 2020, decided on 3.3.2021.
Order
Through instant petition, Muhammad Ikram (petitioner/ accused) has thought post- arrest bail in case arising out of F.I.R. No. 267/2020 dated: 17.03.2020 registered under Section: 489-F, PPC at Police Station: Mumtaz Abad, Multan.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Deputy Prosecutor General and going through the record with their able assistance, it has been noticed that allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he has been obtaining/receiving oil etc. from the company of the complainant i.e. A&Z Oil Mills, Bahawalpur Road, Multan, and on asking to clear the payment, he issued cheque Bearing No. A32528062 amounting to Rs. 3,00,00,000/- to the complainant, which was subsequently dishonoured on presentation.
It goes without saying that Section 489-F, PPC was brought on the statute for the purpose of awarding punishment to the person, who issues the cheque dishonestly for re-payment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation, which is dishonoured on presentation; for the purpose of ready reference, Section 489-F, PPC is hereby reproduced:
“489-F, PPC Dishonestly issuance a cheque.--Whoever dishonestly issues a cheque towards re-payment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation which is dishonoured on presentation, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both, unless can establish, for which the burden of proof shall rest on him, that he had made arrangements with his bank to ensure that the cheque would be honoured and that the bank was at fault in not honouring the cheque.” (emphasis added)
Bare perusal of aforementioned provision of law reflects that for invoking Section 489-F, PPC, mere issuance of cheque or its dishonouring is not sufficient rather first of all it must have been proved that cheque was issued for re-payment of loan or fulfillment of obligation, meaning thereby that there must be material available on the record to show said obligation. Case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has been obtaining oil etc. from the company of the complainant and for payment of the same i.e. for the purpose of fulfillment of said obligation, impugned cheque was issued, however, learned Deputy Prosecutor General, on Court’s query/under instructions of police official present in Court and after himself going through the available record apprises that neither any khata register nor receipt nor any other document showing buying/receiving of oil etc. (mentioned above) by the petitioner from the company of the complainant, has been produced by the complainant or even otherwise brought on the record to establish said obligation, therefore, at present, applicability of Section: 489-F, PPC in the case is a matter of further probe and case of the prosecution against petitioner falls in the ambit of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
 As far as question of huge amount involved in the case is concerned, suffice it to say that punishment for the offence under Section: 489-F, PPC is three ears, or fine, or with both irrespective of the big amount and of course said punishment does not fall within the
ambit of prohibition contained in Section 497 Cr.P.C.; it goes without saying that in such like cases grant of bail is a rule whereas its refusal is an exception and learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant could not refer any material to bring the case of the petitioner in said exception. Section 489-F, PPC cannot be used as a tool for the purpose of recovery of amount. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has further apprised that petitioner was arrested in the case on 27.10.2020, sent to jail on 28.10.2020 and is behind the bars since then. Challan report already stands submitted in the concerned Court; no useful purpose would be served to the case of prosecution by keeping the petitioner in jail for an indefinite period.
3. In view of what has been discussed above, instant petition for grant of post arrest bail is accepted and Muhammad Ikram (petitioner) is admitted to post arrest bail in the case subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- /Rupees ten hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
4. It goes without saying that observations mentioned above are just tentative in nature, strictly confined to the disposal of instant bail petition and shall have no bearing upon trial of the case, which shall be decided on its own merits by the learned trial Court within a period of three months after receipt of attested copy of this order. Needless to add that if petitioner creates any hurdle in the way of conclusion of trial as mentioned above, then complainant as well as the State would be at liberty to move for recalling of this order.
(A.A.K.) Bail allowed
0 Comments