IN THE COURT OF MALIK ALI

Crl. Appeal No. 05/ 10-A of 2O2

Date of Institution: Ll.O7.2Ol

Muhammad Sadiq VS. The

JUDGMENT.

Through this criminal appeal, the a t has assailed the

judgment of Hafiz Kashif Liaqat, the then learned J icial Magistrate Ist

Class, La1ryah dated 10.07.2019 by which the trial court has

convicted the appellant u/s 489-F PPC and sent to undergo one

year SI and to pay fine Rs.1O,OOO/-,in default to

month SI, in case FIR No.SO/L6 registered u/s 489- PPC in PS Pir Jaggi
u
o
ra:
b 9.r on 20.05.2016.
<9s
.?A
fdf 2. Brief facts necessary for the of this appeal are
*as
+--tr

o.> that the respondent No.2 Muzafar Zia got lodged No.50/ 16 u/s 489-
€
Or
g
F PPC in PS Pir Jaggi on 20.05.2016 through writt application Exh.PA

presented by him before Shafa Ullah ASI of PS Pir aggi on 20.05.20|6

mentioning therein that he was running grocery with the name and

style of Punjab Karyana Store. Accused M

purchase house hold articles on debt including ilizer and seeds.

Rs.2,O0,OOO/-was outstanding towards the ac

complainant asked him to pay the amount, he t time that as his

brother was contesting election and the money wa being spent on the

election expenses and for payment of the ou amount, he had

The
issued a cheque in question to him for the due date i.e.24.02.2016.

said cheque was presented by the complainant in th concerned bank on

29.02.2016which was dishonoureddue to non bly of cash.

 -2-
. c
. _ i . l rI r rrKrt ',l |.' l( l ' l _ r . r r vS. The Statc
|

,.i ,':::t$ti:"ation ;lt FIR, the case was ;rv('i*tigiltecl hv P!lr'.5

ri:r11:c,,r-

l ' - r l l : a i la. t l . t i t r r i l i ] . , , , ' " thoa d r e c c i n d e dt h e s t a t e m e n t s , , r ' v t t - t - i e s s e sa n d t o o k

'l,r::crsi'ronoured cheque Exh.P.1 at., tl:ienlcrFlxiiL.FLl. iilhe

;.Ltl 1t,,.l.r,;.:$slrlri

o]-f ,il,j.'r'i
r:;,' :Frtr :.ri',-rrr accuscld was confirmed fro ', t-,,r(jF{on'bje lr-ahore

,',lig[. i.-.,.,.-1.1; flench, 1\,4ultanand I.O. has 6;renared chatlart on

h,,'l'..r,1.,,,n

2,:::.ti-;",:,r i t lr.tl-cl .receipt o.i r;he challan, the lenr rt:d, trial {loti't llas

'
-rii,i.rj.:.t:d
i,irit,:g::r.i...!:rr' uf s 489-ll:r PPC on 27.O2.2O1 tr: ',,'v.iricir
ne pleaded

i..oX;:irt;.i:',tr i.:i ".[i1]l

tflcit trial.

t . llrarr;e.-il1lr.li:r has; produced the co. "J-',;tlt);rr11 anr-j. other

r-el--:;;:;it:tl.,,,r.irX.r-lrc[;r:itril
rncl'ifding, bank Manager af ,,. i]tn 1.l.-). anil aiter

rlx;r,ili.r:i.:ir.,,,lt-.,
cli t-l:i: aucused arr.d hearing argumen'. irotn brttr ihe sides,

i.ht ,i-),iii':ii'-:1,
irrr:, :ourt has convicted and Sefltcriuori fhe accr-lsecl as

.il li r ril.ih l.1L ;,r1pr--llr'i:

,alr.Xri

i-', L,e;-l'r , d col.rnse ; for the appellant " i:,ili; a rgLreo ttia t. the

rr oi'the ll,earnedtrial court is re:,r:lti ()1.ntisreacirng and

rrr'-i,,rr-.'it-rt,:ii.1".tlgmr.:

r.rr; *.:er,:Lt.iir:g,-'i ,': rdence; ttrat the learned tritr r:ur...

rt fr.as f :rilee[ to

aloi)i:,':,,' to the accused irrratia.iJle,:n the tile as

;:,rtfit-.:rrrrrra erial l"avor,lr-ab1e

'i',r':r
.,vel,;,1',, +at,,il.r:,r.1
i:.herewas dispute of outsta[dr,rg oni:i t() the
€tir].ount.

',::r,..:i,i
i-.ri.11cr,t i.,.l.i, ancl the fjame has been feCeir.:rJ|'y the comp:lainant

r.r. lr-r;:r'':ln -,.,irii,.,)rirj.iEh Coul"., Multan Bench, I\ trtitn ancl the learned

1i.r'r;iii
i-;:'.r:f i,tl lr Tlugned or'{:jerwhile deciding t,L- c:ase irt a haste lnas

;i1''r'i. t;ri;,iuiili]e' fionvicting the accused; that 1.-'-:$I-'J,secuttnnhas not

iiil!' pt'o',i oi'purchusle of house hold cot,, rr(tCiltes l"o the,:tuue of

F:iroci,,r..:)Ci
'r. ',iii. ,'
F-,}.;,Jl ri,$ ,rer r"he cialm of the complainarr ti::cl rnlact. the cireque

;;,irqi,lr::,i"t.rt|lrvitLs
h:inc.lec over to the complainant (, 1.iilti cternand, blarrk in

r ]t 'iolai out.standing
j-j,! :r .:ri.":i['] il.r:ti,i-. amount'w..;.s .rls 5Ct,(1U01- :nut the

, j.i.i.irt. rlrsNi":iestiy
i(ji:,iriLiri lii^ied the amount as 1 s.i,tjt),0i)0/- ancl got

,Lsii.-,,:r r.ftrr,':rr]i-t.
l.ll':r'eir:rre, the offence u/s 489-I pf,l., l$ ltoi made out

ayta'..,t':::illitt d-{::'.:.rliili, hence, thiS appeal may be ;rri:lwed and appeiiant

 -3-

6. Learned DDPP assisted by counsel for the

complainant has opposed the contention of accused with the

assertion that judgment of learned trial cou is based on well

appreciated evidence adduced by the prosecu ion; that the direct

evidence of the complainant as well as witnesses s corroborated bv the

cheque Exh.P.l and memo Exh.P.2; that the si res on the cheque

Exh.P.1 is not denied by the defence; that the ap lant has not opted to

challenge the writing on Exh.P.1, therefore, ents of section 489-F

PPC are fully attracted and the learned trial has rightly convicted

the appellant, therefore, no interference is ted in the lindings of

the learned trial court and this appeal is liable to dismissed.

7. I have heard the arguments and gone the record.

8. As per the version set up by the lainant in FIR Exh.PA

=
A'
f that he was a shopkeeper by profession and a t/accused remained
.'\
purchasing various house hold articles including ilizer and seeds etc
ct
gt
5 from him on debt basis and for payment of outstanding amount

Rs.2,0O,0OOl-, he has issued the cheque in ion. It is normal

practice in such like relations i.e. shopkeeper customer that in case

of their transaction on debt basis, the sh used to keep record of

the transaction with dates, details of the purc articles and the price

but during the investigation, the complainant not produced original

register bearing the account of his alleged cu r i.e. appellant to

establish the actual outstanding amount i.e. Rs.2,0,000/-. In his

examination-in-chief, Muzafar Zia complainant w ile appearing as PW.2

has stated that after dismissal of his pre-arrest il from Sessions Court,

accused has moved application for his bail in Honble Lahore

High Court, Multan Bench, Multan and on it of Rs.50,000/-,his

bail was confirmed. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had

not produced the khata (account register) the I.O. during the

investigation. He denied the suggestion that du the proceedingsfor

 *4*
ririiflixfllad i].ldrr vs. The State

l-.i itl l. r..:t:1a.

i' )i.-Xh.:ri .r".irt: and subseqlrently the version of tlre LO. ',r'astha|. only

:.llrr.iii-;
ll rlil;; 5 ,iur: towards the appellant f acctt:',t'{l Reari brorirer of

l!{i-r :atnmad Sh"t:hbaz Zia has ar:1tt:arci a.hi P\\i 3 to

llriatr:,|,i'at,:,le''.'if:r rl;npta.inant. .ln his cfoss-examir.. irc,n, he has Stated

r-:'ta'il!,1-r,'Le'r..:relrrtestigation, 1..O. had examined 1.r.'ir elc*otfn: register.

:alck of knovzledqe about the o1-,ienerllon ot {.{J that

rit::r..itr; ,ll r::ri'st-ar:ding anrount of Rs.50,000r-

.--,.ri'i1r, -,trrirst-he.re.lle has

.ier';.:(-'ilr.r sirlgg.Fr:::,ir.rn
that inract the complainant 1-rj. riisued the crleque

,rui:l.rn 'wa.s Rs.5t,),000/- and

ali .: r'.r-.rrir'rt'.,' subst'..t-en'"]'.,"the amount

l:1s.;ri.lit i,i,r{.r,r v;ii:, distronestny filled by the com r:,,unelnt. Shala t-filah

Ji;lI'li.il ,ras ,a;:l;r,::rrerl

as PW.it. In his chief, he has s ated that as per his

r^zasdisputc of outstanding ar ollnt oi' Rs.50.li00l-

ln.rr:ii1.ri:t...'c,lt-it(:',-.:l

r.rri:,tli"n ,;r;p6,.'",i:..i
;;.r.li :.,'r narties aS the said amoul $ dr.le towarc-ls
\4',:r.

,'iFrd.:t:irccused, of ihe complainant.

ir,rir;r,i-ra."l'na,?rl On l.ne said statelnent,

| r ; ; , r , r , fg. :i ri t r t r c ; i . e d . h o s t i l e b , v =t h e p r o s e c u t i o n / c r : t f i l a r n a n t ' s c r : u n s e l

:-'t.:ldrva:i ;r-ttlrr:l-r-':ito cross-examination. In cross-e)lain:natio,n cn behaif

ll,C:l',:r'.lr:. ,lr.r:t.:a:,.i,tated that the complainant has rLind apphcatic'n uls

l , t , ' ) - 1i'.,- ' r . i ) " f l i r , : : :,': e $ s t r a t i o n n ' F I R in Sessions ( curt and poiice has

5r.1 t::,,,] 1;rrnl:il .lr ls

[ 1,;1.i1. after examining the account regi ster ol the

ri:|ii!, ri1lvRs.50,OCrii)/-was outstandin;:

lr',:::li:.Jl"n:Ltr,ri'r'1, ':u,arrls the accused

Li,,l.i,-,l,arir::"1i,:.r:i
,jsLili:: trt-is pertinent to mention that tlr: r;,ttestedcopies of

1-ii,nr-,,xr,rrr'-r:,:i
i:[r-,".nje Lahorc rligh Court, Multa:r Bt"r::ich.Nl'uitan are

; , r r a 1 l : r n l " . - ' "l'. h i : : c r c i a i f i l e r : f t h e c a s e . T h e f i r s t : r i e r ls rn Cr1. Misc.

:*; r1'20, ri, r-i.l-ied

I\"ir.r..r&.,1:-t as I\rluhammad SadiqVs. tne State and others

iir{: ::{1"':rie High Cor;rt has observed th.ir. fv{u}ramrnad r$adiq

r..r rr,,:=ir,":'t

sr;,;.:rrtted affida.,rit Mark-A whereby I e patd lts.30.,0il0/-

.i:jri.,ri'uEi:..,
;,iri)-.11

: i , . r i rri r r . ' : i - r : : r t o nl rE " o a v t h e b a l a l t c e a m o u n t R s . 2 0 . L r : J i . l - o n 0 ' / . I I . 2 0 1 6 .

r',cCf)ri'{ji
i' !1,"t l-[,:i. r]re-arrest :ail was COnfirrr^e0. ln l$LlbSequent

,p. l,:l
Lllrio{,r.:tijliilr=r:s l4isc. No"tr703-CF^l2O17 titlerl ar }yl',lzaffar Zra vs.

l',:ie li':n,f,, eiid ,:i'r:r'.r:irlated 2l.Il.2O17 (appiicati...- flrrr :ancellatlon of

 -5-

bail), the Hon'ble High Court has observed tha the respondent No.2,

(present appellant) had paid Rs.2O,OOO/- in which has been

received by the complainant in compliance of the id condition. There is

no cavil to proposition that the observation in il matters cannot be

considered as part of evidence during the trial presumption of truth

is attached to the judicial proceedings as the Hon le Lahore High Court,

Multan Bench, Multan has observed that the /appellant has paid

Rs.SO,OOO/-to the complainant which he had ived. The conduct of

the complainant itself indicates that he had impl ly concealed actual

amount of accused/appellant Rs.50,000/- as had not refused to

receive the amount or agitated that actual t was Rs.20,000.It

appears that the amount on the cheque i.e / - was

Rs.2,OO,OOO

exaggerated by the complainant and while the same he has

presented the cheque for encashment and to get dishonoured

memo. Perusal of judgment of learned trial court that the learned

trial court has ignored this aspect of the matter was most relevant

to resolve the controversy of the case, hence, the ines of the learned

trial court cannot be considered based on well facts on the

file and law on the subject.

9. In view of the above mentioned ,Iamofthe

considered view that the prosecution remained to prove the

charge u/s 489-F PPC against the accused/ , hence, this appeal

is allowed and appellant/convict stands acqu of the charge.

Appellant is on bail, his bail bond stands File be consigned

to the record room after due completion. Record of learned trial court

alongwith copy of judgment be sent back im

Announced. (Malik Ali AwanI

09.03.2021. Sessions Judge, yyah.

Certified nt consists of pages which has

been dictated, read, or*[,(_
Dated:09.03.2021 T(4t
SessionsJudge, ah.

t\