Summary: Principle of sifting grain from the chaff.

Summary: For invoking Section 489-F PPC, mere issuance of cheque or its dishonouring is not sufficient rather first of all it must have been proved that cheque was issued for fulfilment of obligation---The petitioner/accused, has filed a petition seeking post-arrest bail in connection with FIR registered under Section 489-F PPC at Police Station Masti Gate, Lahore. The allegation against the petitioner is that he dishonestly issued a cheque towards the repayment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation, which was subsequently dishonored. The court noted that the complainant alleged that he supplied iron to the petitioner, and in return, the impugned cheque was issued as a part of the fulfillment of the said obligation. However, the court observed that no material has been produced to establish the obligation or the supply of iron by the complainant to the accused. The court emphasized that for the application of Section 489-F PPC, it is not sufficient to merely establish the issuance and dishonor of the cheque; there must be evidence of an existing obligation. In this case, since there is a lack of material to establish the alleged supply of iron, the applicability of Section 489-F PPC required further inquiry. The court clarified that the punishment for the offense under Section 489-F PPC is three years or a fine, irrespective of the amount. The court also considered that the petitioner has been in custody since 16.01.2020, the challan report has been submitted, and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in jail for an indefinite period. The court concluded that the case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. The court, therefore, grants post-arrest bail to Sohail Alam Siddique, subject to him furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 265-F & 540---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Summoning of witness---Principle---Petitioner/accused was facing trial for causing injuriesand damage to person and property of complainant party---Trial Court allowed complainantto produce those persons as prosecution witnesses who were not included in calendar ofwitnesses---Validity---Mandatory under S.265-F(1), Cr.P.C. upon Court to take all suchevidence as was produced in support of prosecution---No restriction was imposed onprosecution to produce evidence of its choice---Court could refuse under S.265-F(2), Cr.P.C.to summon any such witness who was to be called for purpose of vexation of delay ordefeating ends of justice---Court had no choice to refuse to examine any witness produced byprosecution in view of S.265-F(1), C.P.C.---All proposed witnesses were figured as eyewitnesses in FIR but they were neither cited as witnesses in calendar of witnesses nor theirstatements were recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C.---Non-availability of statement of a witnesswho had not recorded its statement could not be considered to be a violation of provision ofS.265-C, Cr.P.C.---Law did not place any embargo on examination of a person during courseof trial, either in favour of prosecution or accused, who had not recorded his statement underS.161, Cr.P.C.---High Court declined to interfere in the orders passed by Trial Court as wellas Lower Appellate Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction---Constitutional petition wasdismissed in circumstances.Muhammad Azam v. Muhammad Iqbal and others PLD 1984 SC 95 ref.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 161 & 265-F---Summoning of witness---Non-recording of statement by police duringinvestigation---Effect---Provision of S.265-F, Cr.P.C. does not provide specifically that onlythose witnesses can be examined whose statements have been recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C.or their names have been mentioned in challan in column of witnesses.(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 540---Summoning of witness---Essential for the just decision of the case---Determination---Procedure---Not necessary to hold a separate inquiry so as to reach a conclusion whether an item of evidence is essential for the just decision the case---Such isenough if it appears so to the Court from any material and infers from the material includingthat which is already available to the Court in any, admitted evidence or material otherwiselying on the judicial and other files before it.The State v. Muhammad Yaqoob and others 2001 SCMR 308 rel.(d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 265-F(2)---Summoning of person not named in calendar of witnesses---Principle---Person not already cited as a witness can be produced under S.265-F (2), Cr.P.C. whenpermission is given by Court.Shah Zain Bugti and others v. The State PLD 2013 SC 160 rel.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Sending cases to prosecution in bail matter for inserting relevant sections of law.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 22-A & 22-B---Powers of Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Registration of FIR---Elementof mala fide---Scope---Petitioners assailed order passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peacewhereby criminal case was ordered to be registered against them---Order for registration ofFIR against the petitioners was passed without affording them an opportunity of hearing---Respondent was arrested in FIR on the complaint of one of the petitioners---Petitioner hadalleged that a passenger van and official vehicle of the petitioners collided and there was nodamage to any vehicle, the passenger van also went away and vehicle of the petitioners alsoproceeded, meanwhile the respondent forcibly stopped the official vehicle, resisted anddamaged the shirt of the levies official but on the other hand respondent claimed that thepetitioners and other levies officials took him to a place where he was tortured andwrongfully confined for ten hours---No medical certificate about injuries to the respondentwas available on record---Prompt FIR was lodged against him and he was arrested on thesame day, therefore, no question of wrongful confinement arose---Respondent had filed theapplication under S. 22-A, Cr.P.C. in order to harass and humiliate the public servants---Element of mala fide was apparent from the conduct of respondent---Constitutional petitionwas allowed and the impugned order was set aside, in circumstances.2020 YLR 44 and Sughra Bibi v. State PLD 2018 SC 595 rel.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 22-A & 22-B---Powers of Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Registration of FIR---Scope---Ex officio Justice of Peace, in exercise of powers under S.22-A, Cr.P.C., is not supposed toproceed and act mechanically by simply considering the version of events narrated by a partyapplying for registration of an FIR, but instead, in order to safeguard against misuse or abuseof such process, the Ex-officio Justice of Peace has to apply his judicial mind and has tosatisfy himself that prima facie some material is available on record to support such version.Younas Abbas and others v. Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal PLD 2016 SC 581rel.(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)------Ss. 22-A, 22-B & 154---Powers of Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Information in cognizablecases---Scope---Word 'shall' has been used in S.154, Cr.P.C., while the word 'may' has beenused in S. 22-A(6), Cr.P.C., which manifests the intention of legislature that Ex-officioJustice of Peace is still left with discretion to pass an order for registration of FIR.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending