AHMAD FARAN SABIR vs State Ss — 2024 CLD 30 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

AHMAD FARAN SABIR VS State Ss. 5 & 118---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 249-A & 561-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F---Presumptions as to negotiable instrument--- Petitioner moved an application under S. 249-A, Cr.P.C., before the Trial Court for his acquittal claiming that the charge against him was groundless and there was no probability of him being convicted of any offence---Said application was dismissed---Decision of the Trial Court was upheld in revision by the Revisional Court---Validity---Petitioner had neither denied his signature on Cheque in question nor the fact that it was drawn on his account---Petitioner had challenged its validity on the premise that it did not conform to the requirements of S. 5 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881---Cheque in question contained the expression "Pay cash or bearer"---In view of the said discourse, the contention was repelled---Allegedly, police had found defence plea of petitioner correct during investigation, which might help him during the trial but not at present stage---Investigating Officer had the mandate only to collect the evidence pertaining to the case he was investigating and to dig out the truth and then submit report in terms of S. 173, Cr.P.C.---Said report, however, was not a piece of evidence itself---If the cheque said "pay cash" and the words "or bearer" were not scored off, the person in possession of the instrument would be presumed to be a holder in due course---In the instant case, respondent No. 2 (complainant) enjoyed the same presumption in respect of Cheque in question which could be rebutted at a regular trial where the parties have equal opportunity to adduce evidence to prove their respective claims and test the credibility of the witnesses of the other side through cross-examination---Sole opinion of the Investigating Officer could not negate that presumption---Section 249-A, Cr.P.C., reflected a compromise between the collective good of the society and the rights of an individual offender---Idea was to spare the offender the rigors of full trial if the Court at any stage found that the charge was groundless and the prosecution was not likely to succeed, however, present case was not a case in which the provisions of S. 249-A, Cr.P.C., could be invoked---Petition had no merit and was therefore dismissed.

AHMAD FARAN SABIR vs State Ss — 2024 CLD 30 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 CLD