To constitute an offence, U/S 489-F PPC dis-honesty on the part of person issuing the cheque is pre-condition towards the repayment of amount or fulfillment of an obligation. The word “whoever dishonestly issued cheques” used in the section clearly indicates to constitute an offence, it must be proved that the cheuqes have been issued dishonestly.

 Dishonestly means a fraudulent act or intent to defraud others, it is also a pre-condition that the cheque should be dishonored on “Presentation”.

The basic ingredients for attracting the Section 489-F P.P.C are as under;

(i) Dishonestly issuing.

(ii) Towards re-payment of loan.

(iii) Fulfillment of an obligation.

(iv) Dishonored on presentation.

Mere issuance of cheque and its dis-honor by itself is not an offence unless the aforementioned ingredients are fulfilled.

It is trite that during the trial, prosecution can only produce the witnesses, whose names are mentioned in the calendar of witnesses but when the prosecution wishes to examine the witness whose name is not included in list of witness, it could not claim as a right but shall be required to file a petition under Section 540 Cr.P.C or other provisions of law, and shall be required to satisfy the conscious of the Court that such examination is needed for discovery of truth.

The compromise deed (Mark-A) has been made the sole ground of awarding conviction to the petitioner / accused by the learned trial Court but it is also an admitted fact that the document / compromise deed (Mark-A) was neither exhibited in the evidence nor it was put to the petitioner / accused in his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C.

It is a well settled law that document which has not been exhibited, cannot be read in the evidence. It is also settled that no conviction can be based upon the evidence which has not been put to accused in his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C.

This Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction in terms of Section 35 Cr.P.C has to examine the record for the purpose of satisfying its conscious to check the correctness, legality or propriety of any findings / sentence passed by learned lower Courts, therefore, duty conferred upon the High Court on its revisional side compel it to reprise the entire evidence on the touch stone of principle of fair trial as referred in Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, if the first appellate Court in disposing of the appeal did not discuss the evidence at all.

Criminal Revision No. 34 of 2021
Mazhar Iqbal Versus The State and another.