Syed BASIT HYDER TAQVI vs State — 2026 PLD 75 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Citation: 2026 PLD 75 SUPREME-COURT
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
Year: 2026
Reporter: PLD
Parties: Syed BASIT HYDER TAQVI vs State
Subject matter: Criminal
Provisions referred to: S. 497---C; S. 73---P; S. 489-F---D; Contract Act (IX of 1872); Penal Code (XLV of 1860); Contract Act; Civil Procedure Code

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

Judgment text as reported

Syed BASIT HYDER TAQVI VS State. S. 497---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 73---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F---Dishonoring of cheque---Bail, grant of---Counsel and client relationship---Non-payment of professional fee charges---Breach of contract---Complainant was advocate and accused was his client who paid professional charges in shape of cheque which was dishonoured on presentation---Held: If client failed to make full fee payment, the amount could be recovered through civil remedies---Initiation of criminal case against one's own client could only be considered in exceptional circumstances where no other remedy was available---Failure to pay for service, such as legal representation, does not necessarily result in penal consequences---State of consciousness that is culpable is the essential component of criminal liability---Dishonestly issuing a cheque is punishable with up to three years' imprisonment under section 489-F, P.P.C. and the offence necessitates rigorous examination---Alternative remedies were available under civil law, such as claim for compensation for loss or injury resulting from breach of contract under section 73 of Contract Act, 1872 and suit for recovery under Civil Procedure Code, 1908---Provision of section 489-F, P.P.C. is intended to function as a safeguard against fraud, rather than as a blade to enforce civil recovery---Mens rea (dishonest intent) must be established in order to incur penal consequences and criminal proceedings under 489-F, P.P.C. must not be used as a substitute for civil remedies---Bail was allowed.

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLD

2026 PLD 17 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRSECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR, MUZAFFARABAD VS JALIL-UR-REHMAN TAREEN. art. 4…
2026 PLD 17 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRSECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR, MUZAFFARABAD VS JALIL-UR-REHMAN TAREEN. Photos…
2026 PLD 17 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRSECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR, MUZAFFARABAD VS JALIL-UR-REHMAN TAREEN. art. 4…
2026 PLD 17 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRSECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR, MUZAFFARABAD VS JALIL-UR-REHMAN TAREEN. art. 4…
2026 PLD 17 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRSECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR, MUZAFFARABAD VS JALIL-UR-REHMAN TAREEN. art. 4…
2026 PLD 12 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRAURANGZEB SIDDIQUI VS State. S. 302(b)---arms act (XX of 1965), S. 13---Qatl-i-amd, possession of illicit weapon---appreciation of evidence-…

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English