Mst. ASMA AHTESHAM vs The STATE
This criminal revision application challenges an order passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, East Karachi, which involved the applicant in a case regarding dishonoured cheques. The core legal question was whether the applicant, who maintained a joint bank account with her husband, could be held liable for the offence of dishonouring cheques under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, despite her claims of innocence and lack of involvement in the business transactions. The applicant argued that she had no concern with the business and that the essential requirements for the offence were missing. The court, upon reviewing the record, found that the applicant was a signatory to the joint account and had actively participated by signing a letter to the bank regarding the cheques. Consequently, the court held that the facts and circumstances sufficiently connected the applicant to the commission of the alleged offence. The court upheld the lower court's order, affirming that joint account holders who actively participate in account-related correspondence share common intention in the commission of the offence.
- Can a joint account holder be held liable for the offence of dishonouring cheques under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does active participation in account-related correspondence by a joint account holder establish common intention for the purpose of criminal liability?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---Through this application applicant has impugned order dated 8-3-2012 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge East Karachi.
2. ' The allegation as per F.I.R. Is that applicant and her husband were maintaining a joint account and cheques issued to complainant were dishonoured.
3. ' Counsel for applicant states that she is innocent and has no concern with the business of her husband neither she obtained any loan from the complainant as alleged in the F.I.R. Nor issued cheques to the complainant. He submits that learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge East Karachi ignored this fact that the essential requirements for involving her or joining her in case under section 489-F, P.P.C. Are missing and mere appearing of her name allegedly in a letter to bank, to stop the payments of cheques 4 days after dishonouring. He further submits that complainant has falsely implicated the applicant in this case in order to humiliate her in the eye of society.
4. ' Counsel for complainant submits that the cheques of the applicant/accused have been dishonoured which are on the record.
5. ' Applicant/accused run joint account from which the cheques were issued and she is bound by the conditions mentioned in the form which says that she is equally responsible for the acts done in the account. He submits that she had been negotiating for the loan and had written letters to the bank for stopping payments of cheques as such she has shared common intention with co- accused who is her husband to cheat the complainant. He prayed that the order dated 8-3-2012 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge East Karachi is according to law and the same may be upheld.
6. ' Learned A.P.G. Adopts the arguments advanced by learned counsel for complainant.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. The applicant is nominated in F.I.R. The applicant/accused has joint account with co-accused Ahtishamuddin this fact is clear from letter dated 3-5-2010 signed by both the account holders the present applicant and her husband. The facts and circumstances of the case fully connect the applicant/accused with the commission of alleged offence, hence I am of the view that the order passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge East Karachi needs no interfere and the same is upheld.
8. ' Criminal Revision Application No,75 of 2012 is disposed of.