Ingredients of 489-F are important in Check Dishonor Case
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a bail petition before the Lahore High Court in a cheque dishonor case under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, which criminalizes issuing a cheque that later bounces when there was dishonest intention behind it.
The petitioner, Muhammad Jameel, had been accused of issuing a cheque worth over six hundred thousand rupees that could not be cashed. He was arrested and sought post-arrest bail. His lawyer argued that the petitioner and the complainant had an ongoing business relationship as buyer and seller of diesel and petrol, that accounts between them were disputed and unsettled, and that this was really a matter requiring rendition of accounts rather than a clear-cut criminal offense.
The court examined the facts and found genuine ambiguity. The complainant himself admitted in court that there was an unresolved issue involving rent for a car that had been in the petitioner's possession, and an adjustment of money related to that rent, none of which had been mentioned in the original police report. The petitioner also had not specified exact dates of credit transactions or when debts were settled.
Given these unresolved factual disputes, the court held that the essential ingredients of the Section 489-F offense were not clearly established, and the case warranted further inquiry rather than continued detention. Bail was granted upon furnishing surety bonds. This case matters because it illustrates how courts distinguish genuine criminal cheque fraud from civil business disputes over accounts.
یہ مقدمہ لاہور ہائی کورٹ میں ایک ضمانت کی درخواست سے متعلق تھا جو چیک کے نادہندہ ہونے کے کیس میں دائر کی گئی تھی، اور یہ معاملہ پاکستان پینل کوڈ کی دفعہ 489-F کے تحت آتا تھا، جو ایسا چیک جاری کرنے کو جرم قرار دیتی ہے جو بعد میں بے وقعت ہو جائے اور جس کے پیچھے بدنیتی پر مبنی ارادہ کارفرما ہو۔
درخواست گزار، محمد جمیل، پر الزام تھا کہ اس نے چھ لاکھ روپے سے زیادہ مالیت کا ایک چیک جاری کیا تھا جو نقد نہیں کرایا جا سکا۔ اسے گرفتار کیا گیا تھا اور اس نے گرفتاری کے بعد ضمانت کی درخواست دی۔ اس کے وکیل نے دلیل دی کہ درخواست گزار اور شکایت کنندہ کے درمیان ڈیزل اور پیٹرول کی خرید و فروخت کا کاروباری تعلق چلا آ رہا تھا، کہ دونوں کے درمیان حسابات متنازعہ اور غیر طے شدہ تھے، اور یہ معاملہ حقیقت میں حسابات کی تصفیے کا تقاضا کرتا ہے نہ کہ کسی واضح فوجداری جرم کا۔
عدالت ن
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
PLJ 2011 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1087 Present: Muhammad Khalid Mehmood Khan, J. MUHAMMAD JAMEEL--Petitioner versus STATE and another--Respondents Crl. Misc. No. 8317-B of 2011, decided on 26.7.2011. Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F--Bail, grant of--Relationship between petitioner and complainant as seller and purchaser--Further inquiry--Joint business--Case of rendition of accounts--Not fall within prohibitory clause--Fact was sufficient to prove that there was a dispute between parties about adjustment of liability and accused himself had failed to mention dates on which diesel was supplied on credit and when they were settled liability--Ingredient of S. 489-F, PPC was not attracted in instant case and as such petitioner had successfully made out a case of further inquiry--Bail was allowed. [P. 1088] A Malik Akhtar Javaid, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Hamayun Aslam, Deputy Prosecutor General for State. Complainant in person. Date of hearing: 26.7.2011. Order Muhammad Jamil petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No. 238/2011 dated 23.4.2011, u/S. 489-F PPC, registered at Police Station City Pattoki.
2. Allegation against petitioner is that petitioner issued a cheque worth Rs. 6,04,000/- which could not be encashed.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has wrongly been involved in this case, the FIR is silent regarding presence of alleged accused in the complainant's house on working day. The FIR does not reveal the fact that petitioner used to buy diesel on credit or on cash payment. It is an admitted fact that they are jointly doing business and it is a case of rendition of accounts. The petitioner is in jail from the day of his arrest, the maximum punishment of offence is 03 years which does not fall within the prohibitory clause and as such he is entitled for the concession of bail.
4. Learned D.P.G opposed the bail petition and submits that issuance of cheque is admitted and as such petitioner is not entitled for the concession of bail. D.P.G. further submits that a sum of Rs. 6,69,000/- was due against petitioner being the amount of diesel and petrol purchased on credit by petitioner and in lieu of that liability the petitioner issued the cheque and as such petitioner is not entitled for the concession of bail.
5. Heard, record perused.
6. As per FIR there is a relationship between petitioner and complainant as seller and purchaser. Complainant present in Court himself admits that the car of complainant make Suzuki Cultus remained in possession of petitioner and complainant was demanding the rent of said Car. He alleged an adjustment of Rs. 65,000/- of the rent of car was given to petitioner, when asked why he has not mentioned this fact in the FIR, he has no answer. This alone fact is sufficient to prove that there is a dispute between the parties about adjustment of liability and petitioner himself has failed to mention the dates or which diesel was supplied on credit and when they settled the liability. The ingredient of Section 489-F PPC is not attracted in this case and as such petitioner has successfully made out a case of further inquiry. Without commenting further on the merits of the case which may prejudice the case of both the parties this petition is accepted and petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. (R.A.) Bail accepted.