(((LEADING CASE LAWS ON 489-F)))<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Dishonestly issuing a cheque\u2026\u2026\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Judgments of Supreme Court of Pakistan on S.489-F PPC<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2017 SCMR 1944 SUPREME-COURT<\/p>\n\n\n\n
S. 497(5)\u2014Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)\u2014Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F \u2014Dishonestly issuing a cheque\u2014Petition for cancellation of bail, dismissal of\u2014Case had been instituted by the complainant after about three years, two months and fourteen days of the alleged transaction between the parties leading to dishonouring of the relevant cheque\u2014Such delay had never been properly explained by the complainant\u2014Alleged offence under S. 489-F , P.P.C. did not attract the prohibitory clause contained in subsection (1) of S. 497, Cr.P.C.\u2014Accused had been admitted to post-arrest bail by the High Court after he had already spent about three months in jail and his continued custody in jail was not likely to serve any beneficial purpose\u2014Suit for recovery of the relevant amount filed by the complainant against the accused was already pending before a civil court\u2014Investigation of the case had already been finalized and a challan had been submitted\u2014No allegation had been levelled against the accused regarding any misuse or abuse of the concession of bail\u2014Petition seeking cancellation of bail awarded to accused was dismissed accordingly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2016 SCMR 447 SUPREME-COURT<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Preamble & Sched.\u2014Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F \u2014S.R.O. No.977(I)\/2003 dated 08-10-2003\u2014Federal Investigation Agency, jurisdiction of\u2014Offences under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860\u2014Registration of FIR\u2014Dispute between private individuals\u2014Federal Investigation Agency was not competent and did not have the jurisdiction to register an FIR under S. 489-F , P.P.C. for a dispute between two private individuals in respect of a purely business transaction\u2014Schedule to the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1975 granted jurisdiction to the Federal Investigation Agency to act in respect of several offences, however for exercising jurisdiction in such offences there had to be some nexus between the offences complained of and the Federal Government\u2014Present case did not even remotely involve the Federal Government or for that matter any governmental entity, thus Federal Investigation Agency had no jurisdiction to record the FIR in question\u2014High Court was correct in ordering quashment of such FIR\u2014Appeal was dismissed accordingly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2016 PLD 171 SUPREME-COURT<\/p>\n\n\n\n
S. 498\u2014Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F \u2014Dishonestly issuing a cheque\u2014Pre-arrest bail, grant of\u2014Grounds\u2014Pre-arrest bail granted by High Court on the ground that offence under S.489-F , P.P.C. did not entail any recovery to be affected from the accused person, and if recovery was not to be affected from accused in a criminal case then he could not be refused pre-arrest bail\u2014Legality\u2014Such generalization\/ approach adopted by the Judge-in-Chamber of the High Court could not be approved as it militated against the scheme of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 because arrest of an accused person during investigation of a criminal case was not meant only for affecting recovery from his possession but such arrest was made for the purpose of investigating the circumstances of the case and collecting evidence and recovery, where required, was only one of the components of the investigation\u2014While investigating an offence physical custody of an accused person may be required by the investigating agency for ascertaining and verifying the circumstances being alleged by the complainant party and even for confirmation of the circumstances of the case put forth and advanced by the accused person in his defence\u2014Supreme Court remanded the case to the High Court for a fresh decision on the pre-arrest bail application filed by accused on the merits of the case, and directed that till a fresh decision on the matter, the accused shall remain on ad interim pre-arrest bail, which may or may not be confirmed by the High Court depending upon the final decision of the matter on merits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2014 SCMR 1369 SUPREME-COURT<\/p>\n\n\n\n
S. 498\u2014Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F \u2014Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)\u2014Dishonestly issuing a cheque\u2014Pre-arrest bail, grant of\u2014 Amount given by way of entrustment\u2014Complainant had allegedly handed over some amount to the accused by way of trust\u2014Cheque issued by accused in favour of complainant to return the said amount prima facie was not issued towards repayment of any loan or fulfilment of an obligation so as to attract S. 489-F , P.P.C.\u2014Question as to whether S. 489-F , P.P.C. was attracted in the present case required further inquiry\u2014During investigation no evidence came on record regarding any obligation on the part of the accused to repay any amount to the complainant\u2014Accused had already joined the investigation\u2014Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and consequently accused was granted pre-arrest bail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2014 SCMR 1032 SUPREME-COURT<\/p>\n\n\n\n
S. 497\u2014Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F \u2014Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)\u2014Dishonestly issuing a cheque\u2014Bail, grant of\u2014Over-writing on cheque\u2014Complainant alleged that he paid the accused different amounts from time to time for purposes of business, and the accused issued him a \u201cself cheque\u201d for returning the said amounts, however the cheque was dishonoured on presentation\u2014Cheque in question had some overwriting upon the date of the cheque and the amount in figure\u2014Said cheque was not issued in favour of the complainant, and there was no amount mentioned on it in words\u2014No evidence was available with the complainant to show as to how, when and by what process various amounts were paid to the accused for business purposes\u2014Maximum sentence for offence under S. 489-F , P.P.C. was three years imprisonment, thus it did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.\u2014Accused was behind bars for the last about six months\u2014 Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and accused was admitted to bail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2013 SCMR 51 SUPREME-COURT<\/p>\n\n\n\n
S. 489-F \u2014 Dishonestly issuing a cheque\u2014 Ingredients\u2014Foundational elements to constitute an offence under S.489-F , P.P.C. were that cheque should be issued with dishonest intent; that cheque should be issued towards repayment of a loan or fulfilment of an obligation, and that cheque in question should be dishonoured.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2013 SCMR 51 SUPREME-COURT<\/p>\n\n\n\n
S. 498\u2014Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F \u2014Dishonestly issuing a cheque\u2014Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of\u2014Cheque issued as security and not towards repayment of outstanding loan or fulfilment of an obligation\u2014Effect\u2014Complainant alleged that accused owed him a sum of money and paid the cheque in question, which was dishonoured on presentation\u2014Accused contended that cheque in question had only been issued as security when both parties agreed to settle their dispute through arbitration\u2014Validity\u2014Issuance of cheque in question appeared to be connected with the arbitration accord\u2014Investigation officer stated that cheque was issued by way of security rather than for discharge of liability\u2014Prima facie circumstances indicated that cheque in question was not issued towards repayment of some outstanding loan or fulfilment of an existing obligation instead it had been issued to meet a possible future obligation, therefore, foundational elements of S.489-F , P.P.C. were prima facie missing\u2014Pre-arrest bail of accused was confirmed in circumstances.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
(((LEADING CASE LAWS ON 489-F))) Dishonestly issuing a cheque……… Judgments of Supreme Court of Pakistan on S.489-F PPC 2017 SCMR 1944 SUPREME-COURT S. 497(5)—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F —Dishonestly issuing a cheque—Petition for cancellation of bail, dismissal of—Case had been instituted by the complainant after about three years, two […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2189","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n