PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 145
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Muhammad Waheed Khan, J.
versus
STATE, etc.--Respondents
Crl. Rev. No. 57405 & Crl. Misc. No. 63980-M of 2022,
heard on 11.4.2023.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 435--Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, S. 489-F--Criminal Revision--Dishonoured of cheque--There is no denial on behalf of petitioner regarding issuance of disputed cheque as well as signatures upon same--The petitioner has also failed to establish that he did not issue cheque in question in discharge of any financial obligation and same was issued as guarantee--The trial Court has rightly held that prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against petitioner ‘beyond any shadow of doubt’ as full consistency was found in deposition of prosecution witnesses--Revision petition filed by complainant is also dismissed. [Para 4 & 6] A, B & C
2019 PCr.LJ 295.
Ch. Imran Raza Chadhar, Advocate for Petitioners.
Miss Noshe Malik, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Ch. Babar Waheed, Mr. Adeel Asghar Hashmi and Mr. Javaid Latif Chughtai, Advocates for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 11.4.2023.
Judgment
This judgment shall decide the instant criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner Tahir Ahmad Ansari (against his conviction and sentence) and Criminal Misc. No. 63980 of 2022 filed by the complainant Nasir Ahmad Ansari (for enhancement of sentence imposed upon the petitioner/Respondent No. 2 by the learned trial Court). The Petitioner being accused in case FIR No. 369/2019 registered under Section 489-F, PPC at Police Station Qilla Gujjar Singh. Lahore was tried by the learned Magistrate Section-30, Cantt Lahore, who vide judgment dated 20.05.2022 convicted and sentenced him to two years simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to him. The punishment given to the convict was ordered to run concurrently (if any sentence given in any other criminal case).
2. The petitioner/convict challenged his conviction and sentence before the learned appellate Court/Addl. Sessions Judge, Lahore through criminal appeal, whereas the complainant also filed revision petition for enhancement of sentence of the petitioner, however, both were dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide consolidated judgment dated 03.09.2022, wherein verdict of the learned trial Court was upheld. Feeling aggrieved of the judgments passed by both the Courts below, the petitioner assailed his conviction and sentence by filing the instant revision petition, whereas complainant filed miscellaneous petition for enhancement of sentence of petitioner.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Record goes on to evince that allegedly the petitioner issued cheque Bearing No. 00000043 dated 01.02.2018 of Habib Bank Ltd. amounting to Rs. 10,00,00,000/-(rupees ten crore) in favour of the complainant in order to fulfill his financial obligations, however, it was dishonoured by the concerned bank when it was presented for encashment. Admittedly, the petitioner and complainant are the real brothers and there was dispute over property between them after the death of their father and there is no denial on behalf of the petitioner regarding issuance of disputed cheque as well as signatures upon the same. These facts were also found true during the course of investigation and the petitioner was found fully involved in the alleged crime. The petitioner has also failed to establish that he did not issue the cheque in question in discharge of any financial obligation and the same was issued as guarantee. It is also admitted fact that out of total amount of Rs. 10,00,00,000/-the petitioner had paid Rs. 3,00,00,000/-to the complainant which also suggests that there was some dispute of money or property between both the parties. The prosecution witnesses stood firm to the test of lengthy cross-examination and admittedly documentary evidence consisting of cheque alongwith dishonour slip proved the offence.
5. As far as contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner had already paid an amount of rupees three crore out of total amount i.e. rupees ten crore even prior to giving cheque in dispute to the complainant, so in that eventuality, provision of Section 489-F, PPC does not attract in this case and in support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in case of “Muhammad Rafaqat Yousaf v. The State and others” (2019 PCr.LJ 295). I have gone through the same and it is noticed that the same was regarding a bail matter. However, learned counsel for the petitioner could not cite any case law of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan as well as this Court, wherein on the point of partial payment, the accused was acquitted of the charge. So, the above said contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived.
6. I have perused the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and found that the learned trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the petitioner ‘beyond any shadow of doubt’ as full consistency was found in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and no material contradiction has been pointed out therein by the defence side and as a result thereof, the petitioner was rightly convicted and sentenced. Similarly, I have also perused the judgment passed by the learned appellate Court and found no illegality and infirmity in same and it is found that the learned appellant has also rightly upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court to the petitioner. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the petitioner has also failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgments passed by learned Courts below.
7. Under the circumstances, the instant revision petition is dismissed being devoid of any merits. Before parting with this judgment, it is observed that the learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment observed that the punishment given to the convict shall run concurrently (if any sentence given in any other criminal case). Since the petitioner has not been convicted in any other case as per record and information imparted by learned counsels for the parties, so, the above said observation of learned trial Court was uncalled for and the same is discarded.
8. As far as Cr. Misc. No. 63980-M of 2022 filed by the complainant for enhancement of the sentence of the petitioner is concerned, I have perused the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court and found that the petitioner has rightly been sentenced and the verdict of the learned trial Court has also rightly been upheld by the learned appellate Court. Under the circumstances, the above said petition filed by the complainant is also dismissed.
(K.Q.B.) Revision dismissed
0 Comments