Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 499 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Rao GHULAM MUSTAFA vs State S

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 499 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Rao GHULAM MUSTAFA VS State S. 489-F---Dishonesty issuing a cheque---Three types of punishment provided under S. 489-F---Scope---Such punishments are in alternative to each other as the expression 'or' has been used therein---Insertion of word 'or' by the legislature in S. 489-F reflects its intention that a sentence of imprisonment is not mandatory, and it has been left to the discretion of the court, as only a sentence of fine can also be imposed---Use of word "OR" legally speaks about choosing one out of two or more options which (act of choosing) shall be "legal"---Offence under S. 489-F, P.P.C. was not covered by the prohibition contained in subsection (1) of S. 497, Cr.P.C. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 499 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Rao GHULAM MUSTAFA VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F---Dishonestly issuing a cheque----Bail, grant of---Cheque was issued to the complainant from whom the accused did not receive any amount rather the complainant was a special attorney---Complainant being special attorney alleged that accused owed him a sum of money and paid the cheque in question, which was dishonored on presentation---Executant/principle of power of attorney neither joined the investigation nor her statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C. was available on record---No exact date and time span had been mentioned in FIR during which amount was handed over or transferred through bank transactions---Nowhere in record the purpose of sending money to the accused was reflected---Admittedly, the punishment provided under S. 489-F, P.P.C., was imprisonment for three years or fine or both---Civil litigation under O. XXXVII, Rr. 1, 2, C.P.C., was pending between the parties relating to cheque in question---Involvement of huge amount did not enlarge the punitive scope of S. 489-F, P.P.C., and there was no ground for refusal of bail---Accused was not further required for investigation---Accused was a previous non-convict having no criminal antecedents---Post-arrest bail of accused was allowed in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 499 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Rao GHULAM MUSTAFA vs State S — 2023 PCrLJ 499 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ