Legal Help and Information

24/07/2026

2026 P Cr. L J 811

Pre-arrest bail petition---Maintainability---As per record, case was initially registered on 09.10.2023---Subsequently, the case cancellation report was prepared on 10.10.2023---Cancellation report was duly endorsed by the Magistrate vide order dated 10.02.2024---Since no criminal case existed against the petitioner, the present petition for pre-arrest bail was not maintainable---Counsel for the petitioner, upon realization of that fact, did not press that petition and sought permission to withdraw the same---Petition was disposed of, accordingly.

----Cancellation report---Scope---Once a cancellation report had been prepared by the Investigating Agency and duly endorsed by the competent Magistrate, the matter would be extinguished in the eyes of law.

--Transfer of investigation---Scope---Transfer of investigation was not a mere temporary procedural formality but a definitive and permanent measure, undertaken to ensure the comprehensive conduct of the entire investigation.

----Transfer of investigation---Cancellation of report---Principle---Once a cancellation report is prepared and approved by the Magistrate, no further investigation shall be conducted by the investigating agency unless the Magistrate's order is set aside---As soon as the cancellation report prepared by the investigating agency is concurred with by the concerned Magistrate, this fact must be promptly entered into the relevant police register---Investigating officer should likewise record such development in the case file, duly noting it in the police diary---Before ordering the transfer of investigation, the relevant Board, as envisioned under Article 18-A of the Police Order, 2002, must meticulously examine the entire record to ascertain whether the criminal case remained legally in existence and had not been cancelled or quashed---When the investigation of a criminal case is transferred, it shall be conducted exclusively by the entrusted officer and shall not revert to the previous Investigating Officer under any circumstances---Magistrates handling remand or pretrial matters must exercise strict vigilance and closely examine the record, lest their orders inadvertently legitimize an illegality.

Order
---Through this petition filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in connection with case FIR No. 1795 of 2023, dated 09.10.2023. The said case has been registered under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Basti Malook, District Multan.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that, despite the criminal case having been cancelled by the order of the Magistrate pursuant to a case cancellation report prepared by the investigating officer, the police remain resolute in their attempt to arrest the petitioner.

3. The pertinent facts reveal that the case was initially registered on 9.10.2023. Subsequently, the case cancellation report (hereinafter ‘the cancellation report’) was prepared on 10.10.2023, and, in due course, was forwarded to the concerned Magistrate on 21.12.2023. The cancellation report was duly endorsed by the Magistrate vide order dated 10.02.2024 in the spirit of Rule 24.7 of The Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which remained unchallenged thereafter.

4. Rather than challenging the order of the Magistrate, an astonishing course was taken and an application was filed before the District Standing Board under Article 18-A of the Police Order, 2002, seeking the first change of investigation. However, the Board declined the request, deeming it inappropriate to transfer the investigation. Subsequently, an application was submitted to the Regional Standing Board seeking a transfer of investigation. As a result, on 06.03.2024, the case was handed over to the Regional Investigation Branch for further investigation, blatantly disregarding the fact that the cancellation report had already been endorsed by the Magistrate and that no criminal case was legally in the field at the time. The record further reveals that after the Regional Standing Board transferred the investigation to the Regional Investigation Branch, it was subsequently reverted to the local police station. During this process, one of the accused, Muhammad Aslam, was arrested on 21.12.2024, and following his physical remand, the recovery of thirty thousand rupees along with a top link of a tractor trolly was also affected.

5. The first question of law before this Court is whether, after a cancellation report is prepared by the investigating officer and approved by the Magistrate, any further investigation can lawfully be carried out.

6. The first legal question that falls for determination before this Court is whether, upon the submission of a cancellation report by the investigating officer and its acceptance by the Magistrate, the chapter stands finally closed, or whether the law countenances the initiation of further investigation in the same matter. The legal proposition is now deeply entrenched that once a cancellation report has been prepared and approved by the concerned Magistrate, further investigation cannot be carried out by the investigating agency, as practically no criminal case exists. If no criminal case remains legally in the field, then any purported transfer of investigation is nothing more than a legal mirage. Once a cancellation report has been prepared and duly endorsed by the Magistrate, the case effectively reaches its logical conclusion, leaving no room for further investigation. It is now a firmly entrenched legal proposition that once a cancellation report has been prepared by the investigating agency and duly endorsed by the competent Magistrate, the matter stands extinguished in the eyes of the law. With the legal substratum of the criminal case no longer in existence, the prospect of further investigation becomes unwarranted. The acceptance of the cancellation report marks the terminus of the investigative process, bringing the case to its logical conclusion and leaving no lawful room for the investigating agency to further investigate the case.

7. The next legal proposition before this Court is whether the transfer of an investigation of a criminal case from one investigating officer to another is absolute and final or merely a provisional measure, requiring the case to revert to the original investigating officer after a certain stage of investigation or investigating the specific accused. The legal response is clear and unequivocal that the transfer of investigation is not a mere temporary procedural formality but a definitive and permanent measure, undertaken to ensure the comprehensive conduct of the entire investigation. It is not intended as a provisional deviation or a partial reassignment for a limited purpose, rather, it signifies a complete shift in investigative authority, entrusting the new officer with the exclusive responsibility of carrying the investigation to its logical conclusion. Any notion that the investigation must revert to the original or previous officer after a certain stage is misconceived and contrary to the very essence of such a transfer. Once an investigation is transferred, it shall be conducted exclusively by the entrusted officer and cannot revert to the previous investigating officer/officers.

8. The Regional Police Officer, appearing before the Court, candidly acknowledges the aforementioned legal position and unequivocally undertakes to abide by the due process of law in the future. Above discussed illegalities committed by the investigating agency not only undermined the sanctity of due process but also led to a complete miscarriage of justice, culminating in the unlawful detention of a citizen. Another matter of concern is the apparent lapse on the part of the Regional Standing Board, comprising senior officers, who failed to diligently examine the record before ordering the transfer of investigation. This Court is compelled to issue following firm directions to ensure that such egregious illegalities are not repeated in the future by the investigating agency, for justice must not only be done but must manifestly prevail in every proceeding:-

I. Once a cancellation report is prepared and approved by the Magistrate, no further investigation shall be conducted investigating agency unless the Magistrate’s order is set aside.

II. As soon as the cancellation report prepared by the investigating agency is concurred with by the concerned Magistrate, this fact must be promptly entered into the relevant police register. The investigating officer should likewise record this development in the case file, duly noting it in the police diary.

III. Before ordering the transfer of investigation, the relevant Board, as envisioned under Article 18-A of the Police Order, 2002, must meticulously examine the entire record to ascertain whether the criminal case remains legally in existence and has not been cancelled or quashed.

IV. When the investigation of a criminal case is transferred, it shall be conducted exclusively by the entrusted officer and shall not revert to the previous investigating officer under any circumstances.

V. The Magistrates handling remand or pretrial matters must exercise strict vigilance and closely examine the record, lest their orders inadvertently legitimize an illegality.

9. Since no criminal case exists against the petitioner, the present petition for pre-arrest bail is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner, upon realization of this fact, does not press this petition and seeks permission to withdraw the same.

10. Disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the Central Police Office, Punjab, Lahore for future guidance.
Crl. Misc. No. 764-B of 2025
Muhammad Sarfraz Versus The State and another---

22/07/2026

2026 MLD 844
Horse Breeding Tenancy, though non-heritable, mandates fair consideration of legal heirs. Resumption of tenancy without a proper factual inquiry violates principles of natural justice. Alleged breaches must be established through on-site verification in presence of affected heirs. Heirs of deceased tenants are entitled to priority consideration, subject to suitability. Mechanical imposition of Tawan without examining compliance with breeding obligations is unlawful.
WP. 16125-22
KHIZAR HAYAT VS
MEMBER (COLONIES) BOR ETC

07/07/2026

https://youtu.be/XH9SEY5H6hM?si=MZxQ1OyDU81AYV6M
My new video on my channal plz do like and subscribe my channal it will appreciate me for making more videos for my audience thanks for your love respect and trust.

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

16/06/2026

2019 P Cr. L J 890
[Sindh]
Before Kausar Sultana Hussain, J
Mst. SHELLY NATHANIEL---Petitioner
Versus
IXTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SOUTH KARACHI and others---Respondents
Constitutional Petition No. S-2329 of 2017, decided on 29th May, 2018.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 491---Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), S. 25---Habeas corpus petition for recovery of minors from improper custody of father---Father creating negativity/hatred for mother in minds of minors---Short conversation of the Judge with the parents and the minors in his chambers revealed that mother of minors was willing to join the father apparently for the betterment and welfare of the children but the father was reluctant to keep her again in his house as a wife, until and unless he regained her trust; that the father was creating negativity and hatred in the minds of minors against their mother; that such act on part of father was very harmful in shaping positive personality of minors, and they could develop behavioral problems, and loose self-esteem and self-confidence---Children whose parents were separated were innocent and were not to be punished by maligning their minds against any of their parents; they should be told about the positive side of other parent rather than propagating negativity and maligning their minds---Custody of the minors with the father, if not illegal, was at least improper---Mother of the minors could better dispense and bestow, love and affection to the minors of tender ages---Father being an earning person had to remain out from his house in day time, so he could not look after the minors properly---Besides even if other female relatives of the father were looking after the minors yet they were not substitute for a real mother---High Court directed that the father was to hand over the custody of the minors to the mother, however, he may approach the Guardian Court for claiming custody of the minors, if so desired---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
Mst. Khalida Perveen v. Muhammad Sultan Mehmood and another PLD 2004 SC 1 ref.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 491---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Habeas corpus petition for recovery of minors from improper custody of father---Constitutional powers of the High Court---Scope---High Court was empowered to issue directions in the nature of habeas corpus under S. 491, Cr.P.C., if the custody of the minor was improperly disturbed---Section 491, Cr.P.C. provided a more efficacious, speedy and appropriate remedy in a case of illegal or improper custody of the minor and the High Court could pass an order regarding the temporary custody without prejudice to the right of the parties for final determination of the dispute pertaining to the custody of the minors by the Guardians and Wards Court.
Muhammad Qasim Niazi for Petitioner.
Saghir Abbasi, A.P.G. for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Sajjad Gull Khatri and Mohammad Nazim for Respondent No.3.
Date of hearing: 16th April, 2018.
ORDER
KAUSAR SULTANA HUSSAIN, J.---The petition has been filed against the order dated 17.10.2017 passed by the learned IXth Additional District and Sessions Judge South, Karachi, whereby Habeas Corpus Petition No. 1482 of 2017 filed by the petitioner Mst. Shelly Nathaniel Daughter of Nathaniel C. Lal for production of alleged detenues/minors namely, Berenice Treeza (17.4.2015), 2) Benedict Leander Sohan (17.4.2005), 3) Louis Phillip Sohan (26.8.2006), and 4) Mathew Alex Sohan (02.01.2008) by the father of minors namely John Valentine Sohan has been dismissed.
2. Necessary facts for disposal of this Constitution Petition are that, during wedlock the respondent No. 3 (husband of petitioner) many time quarreled and entered into clashes with the petitioner and used abusive and filthy language as well as he badly maltreated the petitioner without any cogent reasons, in this regard the petitioner registered her complaint in the police station. However, finally on 03.10.2017, the respondent No. 3 forced her to leave his house in wearing clothes after beating her mercilessly and forcibly snatched the children from her. Per petitioner all the children are under age while Baby Berenice Traeeza is a suckling baby and now physical and mental health of the children is in bad condition therefore, the petitioner being real mother of them claims that she is in a better position to look after them. She pointed out that the respondent No. 3 is habitual intoxicant person and many times he tried to force minors to drink wine. She prayed that the impugned order dated 17.10.2017 may be set aside being illegal and contrary with the settled principle of law and children may be handed over to her.
3. The respondent No. 3 has submitted his objections to the present petition and denied therein the contains of the petition. He requested for dismissal of the petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned trial Judge, while passing impugned order dated 17.10.2017 did not consider the facts alleged in her Habeas Corpus Petition No. 1482 of 2017/and ages of minors, hence the order passed may be set aside and for the welfare of the children their custody may be handed over to her.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has opposed the petition and argued that the present petition is not maintainable under the law as alternate remedy to claim the custody of minors is available in Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, as such the present petition is liable to be dismissed with special costs. He further objected in his reply that being father, the respondent No. 3 is natural guardian of the children as such he is responsible for up bringing of his children and providing all the necessities of life to them. He states that the petitioner on 30.9.2013 herself left his house and inspite of his efforts to stop her, the petitioner did not give any attention to him and children. Per respondent No. 3 his daughter Berenice Traeeza is not a suckling baby as she is two years and eight months old. Per respondent No. 3/father all the children are residing with him with their own will and wish. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/father supported the impugned order passed by the learned IXth Additional Sessions Judge South, Karachi passed on 17.10.2017 and according to him the petitioner has failed to show exceptional and extra ordinary circumstances warranting urgency. He relied upon the judgment reported in MLD 2014 (Sindh) 1333 (Mst. Rabia Noor v. Shahzad Shah).
6. After hearing arguments of both the sides and perusal of record, I am of the view that relationship of wife and husband between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 is still intact. This Court while proceeding with the matter called the parties and their all four children in chamber, while hearing both the parties with their children this Court observed that the petitioner is willing to join the respondent No. 3 apparently for the betterment and welfare of the children but the respondent No. 3 was reluctant to keep her again in his house as wife, for which he shown reason that until and unless he regain his trust upon the petitioner he cannot allow her to join him. During short conversation with the children, it was observed by this Court that the respondent No.3 is creating negativity and hatred in their minds against their mother/petitioner, such act of the respondent No. 3 would be very harmful in shaping positive personality of children, they may develop behavioral problems, loosing self-esteem and self-confidence. So much as they can start hating with every women they saw in the shape of mother. Devastating effect of such psychological condition could be life-long. Separation between a married couple is neither new phenomena nor an abnormal act or stigma, however, it is always advisable that while parting ways, special emphases be laid on the betterment and welfare of children, either or both parties could be at fault, however children born out of such wedlock are innocent and not to be punished by maligning their minds against any of their parents, they be told about positive side of other parent rather propagating negativity and consequent maligning their minds.
7. In the instant matter minors are of tender ages, therefore, keeping in view their ages, I have to follow the dictum laid down by the superior Courts that High Court is empowered to issue directions in the nature of habeas corpus under section 491, Cr.P.C., if the custody of the minor was improperly disturbed. Section 491, Cr.P.C. provides a more efficacious, speedy and appropriate remedy in the case of illegal or improper custody of the minor and the High Court can pass an order regarding the temporary custody without prejudice to the right of the parties for final determination of the dispute pertaining to the custody of the minors by the Guardians and Wards Court. No doubt that the custody of the minors with the respondent No. 3/father, if not illegal is at least improper. The petitioner being mother of the minors can better dispense and bestow, love and affection to the minors being of tender ages. In the reported case of Mst. Khalida Perveen v. Muhammad Sultan Mehmood and another (PLD 2004 Supreme Court 1) the Hon'ble apex Court ruled that "although ordinarily a petition under section 491, Cr.P.C. is not found to be competent when there is no element of illegal custody by the father of his own child, but in the welfare of the child as well as to ensure that the rights conferred upon the child are fully protected in a suitable manner, Court can also pass appropriate orders in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction."
8. Upshot of above discussion and keeping in view the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the custody of the minors with the respondent No. 3/father if not illegal, is at least improper. The minors need constant love, care and affection of the mother. The respondent No. 3/father being earning person has to remain out from his house in day time, so he cannot look after the minors properly. Besides this if supposedly other female relatives of the respondent No. 3/father are looking after the minors yet they are not substitute to the real mother. In this tender age, the minors, especially minor girl in all probability can be brought up properly by the real mother and her custody with anyone except the real mother is improper, therefore, by accepting the locus standi preferred in this Constitution Petition, the impugned order dated 17.10.2017 passed by the learned IXth Additional District and Sessions Judge South, Karachi, in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 1482 of 2017 is set aside. The respondent No. 3/ father is directed to hand over the custody of the minors to the petitioner/mother. However, the respondent No. 3/father may approach to the Guardian Court for claiming custody of the minors, if so desire/advised and the learned Guardian Judge, for custody of the minors shall decide the matter on its own merits, without being influenced by the observations of this Court. Case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/father are distinguishable from the circumstances of present case hence cannot be considered.
9. With this observations and directions, the instant Constitution Petition stands disposed of as allowed.
MWA/S-23/Sindh Petition allowed

16/06/2026

16/06/2026

common Intention & Common Object Part-2

21/04/2026

𝐌𝐀𝐆𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐓𝐄 𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐀𝐋
241-A:- Supply of documents on Magistrate Trial.
242:- Framing of charge.
243:- Conviction on pleading guilty.
244:- Recording of evidence in case the accused plead not guilty.
245 (1):- Acquittal of an accused after evidence.
245 (2):- Conviction of an accused after evidence.
245-A:- Previous conviction of an accused shall be added to the sentence.
246:- Omitted.
247:- Non-appearance of the complainant:- The Magistrate shall acquit the accused unless for reasons adjourning the matter.
248:- Withdrawal of complaint:- If complainant before a final order is passed in any case satisfy the Magistrate that there are sufficient grounds for permitting him to withdraw his complaint, the Magistrate may permit him to withdraw the same and thereupon acquit the accused.
249:- Power to stop proceeding when complainant.
249-A:- Power of Magistrate to acquit accused at any stage.
250:- False, Frivolous, or vexatious accusation.
250-A:- Special summons i.e petty offence.

Note:-
1. Dismissal of an application U/s 249 is not Appealable but a criminal Revision application U/s 439-A.
2. Acquittal U/s 249-A is Appealable U/s 417 before Honourable High Court.

𝐒𝐄𝐒𝐒𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒 𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐀𝐋

265-C:- Supply of statement and documents to accused.
265-D:- When a charge is to be framed.
265-E:- Plead guilty, if so, would be convicted.
265-F:- Evidence for prosecution.
265-G:- Summoning up to prosecutor and defence.
265-H:- Acquittal or conviction.
265-I:- Procedure in case of previous conviction.
265-J:- Statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C admissible.
265-K:- Power of Court to acquit accused at any stage.
265-L:- Power of Government to stay prosecution.
Flmbs

19/03/2026

2025 Y L R 2511
[Sindh]
Before Jan Ali Junejo, J
SULTAN AHMED---Applicant
Versus
The STATE---Respondent
Criminal Revision Application No. 04 of 2021, decided on 9th April, 2025.
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----S. 489-F---Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Complainant got registered FIR against accused for issuing a cheque dishonestly---Accused was convicted by the Trial Court and lower Appellate Court maintained the conviction and sentence---Validity---As per record, the applicant issued two cheques each for Rs. 7 lacs, dated 12-01-2019, drawn on Meezan Bank, to fulfill a financial obligation and both were dishonored due to insufficient funds---Defence plea of coercion was an afterthought, as the applicant failed to present any credible evidence documentary or oral to support his claim that the cheques were obtained under duress at Police Station in presence of Police Officer---Applicant's failure to examine himself on oath under S.340(2),Cr.P.C., or to produce any independent witness to corroborate his stance further weakened his case---Contradictions in the applicant's statements, particularly his own application to Citizen-Police Liaison Committee, where he admitted issuing postdated cheques and merely requested time to pay, negated his claim of coercion---Delay in lodging the FIR was convincingly explained by the prosecution and the dishonor of cheques was corroborated by Bank Officials and documentary evidence, including return memos and confirmation reports---Trial Court and Appellate Court properly evaluated the evidence and there was no legal infirmity, misreading of evidence, or violation of due process that would justify interference by the High Court---Essential ingredients of S.489-F, P.P.C., i.e. issuance of cheque, dishonesty, fulfillment of an obligation and subsequent dishonor were fully met, warranting conviction---In the present case, the prosecution successfully proved all the essential elements constituting an offence under S.489-F, P.P.C---However, the applicant failed to substantiate his defence, thereby confirming the offence against him---Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court had correctly evaluated the evidence and applied the relevant law in convicting the applicant---Criminal revision application was dismissed, in circumstances.
Muhammad Sultan v. The State 2010 SCMR 806 rel.
Applicant in person.
Ali Nasir for the Complainant.
Miss Hina, Assistant PG for the State.
Date of hearing: 21st March, 2025.
JUDGMENT
JAN ALI JUNEJO, J.---This Criminal Revision Application has been filed by the Applicant, Sultan Ahmed, under Section 435 read with Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., seeking to set aside the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Vth Judicial Magistrate, Karachi Central, in Criminal Case No.1253/2019 and maintained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII/MCTC-02, Karachi Central, in Criminal Appeal No.14/2020. The Applicant was convicted under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C) and sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 15,000/-. In case of default, he was to undergo one month of simple imprisonment.
2. The prosecution's case was that the Applicant, in a business partnership with the Complainant, Sarfaraz Yahya, executed an agreement dated 15-05-2018, under which the Complainant invested Rs. 10 million in an import business. Subsequently, due to disputes, the parties executed a second agreement dated 02-01-2019, wherein the Applicant agreed to return Rs. 99,55000 lacs through 15 postdated cheques. Out of these, two cheques__Cheque No. 077082341 dated 12-01-2019 for Rs. 7 lacs and Cheque No. 077082346 dated 12-01-2019 for Rs. 7 lacs, both drawn on Meezan Bank, Nazimabad No. 3 Branch, Karachi__were presented for encashment at Faysal Bank, Nazimabad Branch, Karachi, on 23-01-2019 but were dishonored on 24-01-2019 due to insufficient funds. The Complainant, upon confronting the Applicant, was allegedly threatened, leading to the registration of FIR No. 133/2019 at P.S. Nazimabad, Karachi, under Sections 489-F, 420, 406, 34 P.P.C.
3. During the trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses to establish its case:
1. PW-01 Complainant Sarfaraz Yahya (Exh.05)__Produced:
o Agreement dated 15-05-2018 (Exh.05/A)
o Agreement dated 02-01-2019 (Exh.05/B)
o Cheque No. 077082341 dated 12-01-2019 (Rs. 7 lacs) (Exh.05/C) along with return memo. (Exh.05/D)
o Cheque No. 077082346 dated 12-01-2019 (Rs. 7 lacs) (Exh.05/E) along with return memo. (Exh.05/F)
o Copy of FIR (Exh.05/W)
2. PW-02 Farhan (Meezan Bank Manager) (Exh.06)__Produced:
o Verification letter from I.O regarding dishonored cheques (Exh.06/A)
3. PW-03 Khalid Hussain (Faysal Bank Manager) (Exh.07)__ Produced:
o Confirmation report on dishonored cheques (Exh.07/B)
4. PW-04 ASI Muhammad Naeem (First I.O.) (Exh.08)__ Produced:
o Entries of his visit to banks for verification (Exh.08/A)
5. PW-05 Syed Muhammad Asim Ali (Witness to Agreements) (Exh.09) __Testified that:
o He was present during ex*****on of agreements dated 15-05-2018 and 02-01-2019.
o He witnessed cheques being handed over to the Complainant by the Applicant.
6. PW-06 SIP Sarfaraz Alyana (Second I.O.) (Exh.10)__ Produced:
o Investigation reports and copies of documents collected from banks and parties.
7. PW-07 SIP Abdul Karim (Exh.12)__Produced:
o Statements of complainant recorded during investigation.
The prosecution closed its evidence at Exh.13. The statement of the Applicant Sultan Ahmed was recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C., at Exh.16, wherein he:
Denied the allegations, stating that he never voluntarily issued the cheques.
Claimed that he was forced to sign 18 cheques at P.S. Nazimabad in presence of SIP Abdul Karim.
Alleged that the Complainant coerced him into signing blank stamp papers and took away the title documents of his house.
Contended that he had filed Civil Suit No. 865/2019 before the Hon'ble High Court for cancellation of cheques and stamp papers.
Asserted that the agreements were fabricated and prepared after the dispute arose.
Maintained that the FIR was lodged with considerable delay, without any plausible explanation.
Objected that the place of issuance of cheques was not mentioned in the FIR, making the prosecution's case weak.
The Applicant, despite making several claims in his defense, did not opt to examine himself on oath under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. nor did he produce any witness or documentary evidence to support his defense. The burden was upon the Applicant to prove that the cheques were taken under coercion, but he failed to produce any independent witness to substantiate this claim. No complaint, FIR, or order under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C. was produced to support the allegation that he was forced to sign cheques at the police station. His own application to CPLC Chief Sindh (Exh. S-49) contradicted his defense, as he acknowledged issuing postdated cheques and merely requested more time to pay. His failure to produce any bank statement or financial records to contradict the prosecution's evidence further weakened his stance. Accordingly, his defense plea remained unsubstantiated and was rightly discarded by the learned trial and appellate Courts.
4. The Applicant, appearing in person, argued that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to a business dispute. He claimed that he was coerced into signing 18 cheques at P.S. Nazimabad in the presence of SIP Abdul Karim, and the Complainant later misused two of these cheques. He further contended that before the registration of the FIR, he had filed Civil Suit No. 865/2019 for the cancellation of these cheques and stamp papers. He highlighted that there was a delay in lodging the FIR, and contradictions existed in the Complainant's statements regarding the total investment amount, making the case doubtful. He further pointed out that the 2nd agreement dated 02-01-2019 appeared dubious, as the stamp paper was issued on 09-01-2019. He prayed for acquittal, arguing that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
5. Learned counsel for the Complainant, Mr. Ali Nasir, opposed the revision, contending that the conviction was rightly recorded as the Applicant issued cheques dishonestly to repay an investment obligation, which were dishonored. He argued that the Applicant's defense of coercion was an afterthought, as he failed to provide any direct evidence of coercion. He further submitted that both agreements dated 15-05-2018 and 02-01-2019 were executed voluntarily and that the dishonor of cheques was supported by bank records and witness testimony. He also pointed out that the Applicant himself admitted his business dealings with the Complainant and issuance of postdated cheques in his application to CPLC Chief Sindh (Exh. S-49). Lastly, he argued that the delay in lodging the FIR was well explained and that the essential ingredients of Section 489-F P.P.C were fully established.
6. Miss Hina, Assistant Prosecutor General, supported the impugned judgments, arguing that both courts below correctly evaluated the evidence and that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. She contended that the Applicant's defense lacked credibility, as he failed to bring any independent evidence to support his claim of coercion. She further submitted that criminal intent (mens rea) was evident, as the Applicant knowingly issued cheques despite having insufficient funds. She emphasized that there was no legal infirmity or procedural irregularity in the judgments of the Courts below and prayed for dismissal of the revision application.
7. After careful evaluation of the entire record, it is evident that the prosecution successfully established its case beyond a reasonable doubt, proving that the Applicant issued the subject cheques (Nos. 077082341 and 077082346, each for Rs. 7 lacs, dated 12-01-2019, drawn on Meezan Bank, Nazimabad Branch, Karachi) to fulfill a financial obligation, and both were dishonored due to insufficient funds. The defense plea of coercion was an afterthought, as the Applicant failed to present any credible evidence__ documentary or oral__to support his claim that the cheques were obtained under duress at P.S. Nazimabad in presence of SIP Abdul Karim. The Applicant's failure to examine himself on oath under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. or to produce any independent witness to corroborate his stance further weakens his case. The contradictions in the Applicant's statements, particularly his own application to CPLC Chief Sindh (Exh. S-49), where he admitted issuing postdated cheques and merely requested time to pay, negate his claim of coercion. The delay in lodging the FIR was convincingly explained by the prosecution, and the dishonor of cheques was corroborated by bank officials and documentary evidence, including return memos and confirmation reports. The learned trial court and appellate court properly evaluated the evidence, and there is no legal infirmity, misreading of evidence, or violation of due process that would justify interference by this Court. The essential ingredients of Section 489-F P.P.C__issuance of cheque, dishonesty, fulfillment of an obligation, and subsequent dishonor__were fully met, warranting conviction. In similar circumstances, in the case of Muhammad Sultan v. The State (2010 SCMR 806), the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the conviction and observed: "A perusal of Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C) reveals that the provision applies only if the prosecution successfully establishes the following conditions:
1. Issuance of a cheque.
2. Dishonest intent behind issuing the cheque.
3. Purpose of issuance must be either:
a) Repayment of a loan, or
b) Fulfillment of an obligation (which broadly applies to lawful agreements, contracts, services, promises, or any act that legally binds a person to perform).
4. Dishonor of the cheque upon presentation.
However, the accused can present a valid defense by proving:
1. He had made arrangements with his bank to ensure the cheque would be honored.
2. The bank was at fault for dishonoring the cheque.
If the accused establishes these two facts with tangible evidence__and only after the prosecution has proven the ingredients of the offense__he would be absolved of liability. . In the present case, the prosecution successfully proved all the essential elements constituting an offense under Section 489-F, P.P.C. However, the Applicant failed to substantiate his defense, thereby confirming the offense against him.
8. In light of the above discussion, I find no merit in this Criminal Revision Application. Both the trial Court and the Appellate Court have correctly evaluated the evidence and applied the relevant law in convicting the applicant. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision Application is dismissed, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, as upheld by the Appellate Court, are hereby affirmed.
JK/S-32/Sindh Revision dismissed.