ZULFIQAR HAIDER vs THE STATE
This is a petition for post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged dishonour of a cheque. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the discrepancies in the prosecution's case regarding the issuance and validity of the cheque in question. The Court observed that the cheque presented by the complainant was not among those listed in the F.I.R. as being issued for pecuniary liability. Furthermore, evidence suggested the cheque was originally issued in 2002, a date prior to the enactment of Section 489-F, and that the date had been altered. The Court held that the petitioner's case warranted further inquiry, as the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case that the dishonoured instrument was issued in discharge of a valid pecuniary liability under the relevant statute. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner, establishing the principle that where the foundational elements of an offence under Section 489-F are doubtful or not prima facie established, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail.
- Does the alteration of a cheque date to a period after the enactment of Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, constitute an offence if the original issuance predated the statute?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the cheque allegedly dishonoured was not included in the list of cheques provided in the F.I.R.?
- Does the failure to establish that a cheque was issued in discharge of a valid pecuniary liability entitle an accused to bail under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SH. ABDUR RASHID, J.---The petitioner through this petition seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R.
No.277 of 2005, dated 30-7-2005, under section 489-F, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, Kotwali, Gujranwala.
2. According to the prosecution allegations stipulated in the F.I.R. The petitioner approached Malik Muhammad Saeed who deals in Hosiery Goods for the purchase of said goods and it was agreed between the parties that the complainant would supply him Hosiery Goods worth of Rs.1,500,000 and the petitioner gave him 15 cheques of Rs.1,00,000 each of different dates. The first cheque was to be encashed on 13-1-2005. However, the complainant presented the said cheque on 20-1-2004 which was dishonoured and the complainant thereafter contacted the petitioner who gave him threats of dire consequences obliging the petitioner to report the matter to the police and consequently this case was registered.
3. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that according to the contents of the F.I.R. The first cheque was to be encashed on 13-1-2005, but the same was presented for encashment a year prior to its issue i.e. 20-1-2004 and the said cheque bears No.25619566 and all the cheques which the petitioner allegedly issued to the complainant in lieu of goods have been described in the F.I.R. And the said cheque is not included in them and therefore, it cannot be alleged that the cheque which was not encashed was issued by the petitioner to the complainant in lieu of any pecuniary liability.
It has als.o been argued that the Cheque No.25619566 was issued on 13-1-2002 and 'subsequently the figure of 2 had been converted into 4 by the complainant himself and on the date of issue of said cheque the offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. Had not been created. It has also argued that the complainant did not produce the other cheques which have been mentioned in the F.I.R. To support the factum that he had business transaction with the petitioner and the said cheques had been issued in lieu of any pecuniary liability.
4. During investigation of this case, the complainant produced Cheque No.25619566 which had been allegedly issued by the petitioner on 13-1-2005 and was presented for encashment on 20-6- 2004 and was dishonoured. The number of this cheque is not included in the numbers of the cheques mentioned in the F.I.R. Which the petitioner allegedly issued to the complainant in lieu of pecuniary liability. Therefore, the fact that for which purpose this cheque had been issued by the petitioner to the complainant is a matter of further inquiry. This cheque was initially issued on 13-1- 2002 and subsequently the figure 2 had been converted into 4 with some initials. On the initial date of issue of Cheque No.25619566 the offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. Was not on the Statute Book as this offence had been created on 25-10-2002.
5. In view of these facts, it is, prima facie, apparent that the cheque allegedly dishonoured firstly was not issued in lieu of any pecuniary liability and secondly it pertains to the date when this offence had not been created. Thereafter, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.