Lahore:
The High Court of Lahore (LHC) refused to advocate in terms of surety, judging that the “non-report” and “intransigence” of the petitioner justified the dismissal, even if the alleged offenses do not fall under the category of non-reproducible offenses.
The case involved Tariq Rehman Chohan, who had diverted RS3 million rupees wrongly on his bank account.
When approached by the bank, the accused issued a check for the same amount to unload his liabilities, but he rebounded due to insufficient funds. A FIR was then filed under article 489-F of the Pakistan Criminal Code (PPC) on the complaint of the Director of Bank operations.
During the procedure, Chohan’s lawyer argued that article 489-F of the PPC does not fall under the prohibited clause of article 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC).
He argued that the offense brought an alternative fine of fine, that no case was prima facie denounced from the FIR and that the petitioner account had been blocked without justification.
He argued that the bank’s fault, guaranteeing the case as a more in -depth investigation.
However, the accusation opposed the deposit, claiming that the accused had knowingly diverted the funds transferred by mistake and deliberately adopted a deceptive course.
The legal argued that Chohan was responsible not only under article 489-F PPC, but also under article 406 PPC, relating to the criminal violation of confidence.
Judge Tanveer Ahmad Sheikh observed that the petitioner was forced to inform the erroneous transfer bank and organize his return. Instead, it removed 2.5 million rupees for personal use. “As such an offense, punishable under article 406 of the PPC fully attracted against him,” said judge Sheikh.
He added that when the bank had put pressure on the recovery, the petitioner issued a check for RS3 million, which was dishonored, also involving article 489-F.
