SHABBIR AHMED Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF
This criminal petition was filed seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contended that the trial court erred in characterizing the offence as bailable and argued that the respondent admitted liability regarding the dishonoured cheque. The respondent countered that the cheque was issued in 2000, prior to the enactment of Section 489-F, and alleged that the cheque had been tampered with before presentation. The core legal question was whether the bail granted to the respondent should be cancelled given the evidentiary challenges regarding the original cheque. The Court held that since the prosecution relied solely on a photocopy of the disputed cheque and the original had not been recovered, the evidentiary value of the document remained a matter for the trial court to determine after recording evidence. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that in the absence of the original document, the respondent's contentions regarding tampering and the non-applicability of the statute could not be summarily rebutted.
- Can bail be cancelled when the prosecution's case rests solely on a photocopy of the disputed cheque?
- Is the evidentiary value of a photocopied cheque a matter to be determined during trial?
- Does the absence of an original document prevent the rebuttal of a defense regarding the date of a cheque's execution?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM-UZ-ZAMAN, J.--- Seeks cancellation of bail of respondent Muhammad Hanif allowed by Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide order, dated 7.3-2005 in case F.I.R. No.55 of 2005, dated 29-1-2005 for the offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Civil Line, Lahore, on the grounds that learned trial Court while passing the impugned order erroneously held that offence committed by the petitioner is bailable offence, during the investigation respondent was found guilty on the basis of evidence produced by the petitioner, respondent had admitted his liability qua the execution of cheque which was dishonored by the Bank. Conversely counsel for the respondent submitted that though petitioner had issued cheque but the same was issued in the year 2000 when section 489-F, P.P.C. was not the part of the statute, thus he cannot be held liable for the commission of offence. Further submits that in fact after tampering with the date in the cheque in dispute same was presented before the Bank which was dishonoured later on and that the original cheque was never produced before the Investigating Officer. Statedly the entire case of the prosecution rests upon the photostat copy of the cheque in dispute and this piece of evidence has no legal value.
2. Heard. File perused.
Admittedly, the cheque in dispute was never taken into custody by the police and the case of the prosecution rests upon the Photostat copy of the said cheque. What would be the value of this type of evidence is to be decided by the trial Court after recording of evidence of both the sides. In the absence of any original document, it is difficult to rebut the stand of respondent that the cheque in dispute was tampered with and that at the time when the cheque was executed section 489-F, P.P.C. was not in existence. In this view of the matter, finding no force in this petition the same stands dismissed.
H.B.T./S-72/L Petition dismissed.