Ch. RIASAT ALI AND Another vs THE STATE
This petition was filed by the accused, Riasat Ali and Muhammad Anwar, under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings of cheating initiated against them. The prosecution's case was based on an agreement where the accused allegedly promised to sell imported chemicals to the complainants, received money, and subsequently failed to deliver the consignment. Following a compromise mediated by respectables, the accused issued a receipt acknowledging a loan and provided a post-dated cheque, which was subsequently dishonoured by the bank upon presentation. The Lahore High Court held that the facts did not disclose any criminal offence. The Court ruled that a post-dated cheque serves as an acknowledgement of a debt and a promise to pay on a future date. Consequently, a broken promise or the dishonour of such a cheque does not constitute a criminal offence, even if it represents discreditable business behavior. The petition was allowed, and the criminal proceedings were quashed.
- Does the dishonour of a post-dated cheque issued as a promise to pay a debt on a future date constitute a criminal offence?
- Can criminal proceedings for cheating be quashed if the underlying transaction and subsequent compromise represent a civil breach of promise rather than a penal offence?
ORDER
This is a petition by Riasat Ali and Muhammad Anwar of Messrs Co-operative Industries Ltd., Gujranwala accused of cheating praying this Court to quash the proceedings against them on the ground that the accusation made in the final police report disclosed no offence against them.
2. The facts are these. On 19th February 1964, Messrs Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Yaqoob of Gujranwala, presented an application to the Superintendent of Police of the District wherein they alleged that 11 months ago Riasat Ali and Muhammad Anwar approached and told them that they were in possession of an import licence for chemicals, i.e. Sodium Nitrate and bleaching powder and that they were prepared to sell the same to them. As a result of the negotiation, the complainant parted with some money. As a result of that consideration, the accused agreed to deliver them the consignment after its import. Later on, they retracted. As a result of the intervention of certain respectables, a compromise was madethe parties, whereupon on 22nd July 1963, Riasat Ali a receipt placed on the record as Annex, `B', wherein he acknowledges on behalf of Co-operative Metal Industries Ltd. a loan of Rs. 5848 and stated therein that he had issued a post- dated cheque No. CAC. 003055, dated 1st October 1963, in lieu of that loan on Habib Bank Ltd., in favour of Messrs Saleem & Co, The complainant presented the cheque which was referred to drawer by the Bank.
3. In my judgment on the facts stated no criminal offence has been committed. A post-dated cheque in fact is an acknow--ledgement of the debt by one of the applicants, as it is indicative from the receipt Annex. B'. It is a promise to pay on a future " date and a broken promise is not a criminal offence though it, may amount in business relations discreditable behaviour.
In the course of argument, learned counsel far the complainant showed me a few documents which ex facie show that the accused had entered into a shaddy transaction regarding the import licence issued to them. It would be appropriate of the Chief Controller of Import and Export Pakistan to look into this matter.
4. For the reasons given above, I allow this petition acid quash the proceedings on the ground that no penal offence has been disclosed.
Cited by 5 cases
- AKHTAR HUSSAIN ZAIDI vs THE STATE 1985 PLD Lahore 662
- AKHTAR HUSSAIN ZAIDI vs THE STATE 1986 P Cr. L J 1742
- KAMAL HUSSAIN vs AZIM GUL AND ANOTHER 1975 P Cr. L J 1240
- AKHTAR ALI vs The STATE 1972 P Cr. L J 1034
- GUL JAMAL KHAN AND Another vs SHAH JAHAN KHAN 1971 P Cr. L J 943