Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- Raja Inaam Amin Minhas and Ch. Ehtisham-ul-Haq, Special Prosecutors ANF for the State.

Summary: Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881)- - Ss. 6, 22 & 118-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVII-Summary suit-Cheque, issuance of-Whether cheque was issued by respondent for consideration or merely as an acknowledgment/receipt for investment made by him-Held, that it was a well-established principle that a cheque was intended to be for immediate payment-In ordinary circumstances cheques were exchanged between the parties for the purpose of immediate payment-Cheque was not even entitled to days of grace, as in the case of promissory notes and bills of exchange-Presumption that every negotiable instrument was made/drawn for consideration was however rebuttable-Burden to rebut said presumption laid upon the party arguing that the negotiable instrument had not been made/drawn for consideration-Such presumption was not rebutted by a bare denial of the passing of the consideration-To disprove the presumption the defendant (person who had issued the cheque/negotiable instrument) had to bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which the court may either believe that the consideration did not exist or its non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, shall act upon the plea that it did not exist-In the present case the respondent (who had issued the cheque) provided a bare denial as his defence, and produced no independent evidence to support his plea that cheque was issued by him merely as a receipt-Furthermore no protest was lodged by the respondent when the appellant presented the cheque for encashment to a bank, which returned the cheque with the remark 'refer to drawer'-Respondent re-validated the cheque but it was again declined by the bank with the same remark-If respondent's plea that cheque was issued merely as a receipt was accepted, then question was as to what was the purpose behind revalidating the cheque-Only reasonable explanation for this was that cheque was issued and revalidated by the respondent so that appellant could recover his amount owed to him by the respondent-Appeal was allowed and summary suit filed by appellant for recovery of his amount was decreed. Haji Karim v. Zikar Abdullah 1973 SCMR 100; Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Payrelal [1999] 1 SCR 704 and Col. (Retd.) Ashfaq Ahmed and others v. Sh. Muhammad Wasim 1999 SCMR 2832 ref. Dates of hearing: 9th and 12th November, 2020.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending