ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J. - Muhammad Sultan, petitioner was convicted for an offence under section 489-F, PPC vide Judgment dated 15.07.2008 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Faisalabad and was sentenced to imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.
15,000/- or in default of payment thereof to undergo imprisonment for one month. The benefit under section 382- B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to him. The petitioner preferred an appeal in that regard but his appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad Vide judgment dated 12.03.2009. Hence, the present" revision petition before this Court.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of this case with their assistance.
3. According ,to the prosecution the petitioner had Issued a cheque amounting to Rs. 25,00,000/- in favour of the complainant which cheque had been dishonoured by the relevant bank. Various documents available on the record show that business transactions between the parties to this case over some period of time is a fact, which is not disputed. The petitioner has been maintaining that he had never issued the relevant cheque, in favour of the complainant but as a matter of fact the relevant cheque had been stolen from his office and he had stopped payment of the said cheque by writing a letter to the relevant bank in that regard on 26.01.2005. The date of issuance of the relevant cheque was 24.02.2005 and the said cheque had been dishonoured by the bank on 28.02.2005. It was nothing but anomalous that the petitioner had statedly requested the bank to stop payment even before the relevant cheque had been issued! The documents available on the record as Exhibit-DF and Exhibit-DG confirm the fact that the petitioner does not dispute his signatures on the relevant cheque. The record shows that the petitioner happens to be a businessm an of some standing and experience and it is quite unbelievable that he would keep a blank cheque with his signatures on the same in his office for thieves to steal and use it! The letter written by the petitioner to the relevant bank requiring stoppage of payment of the said cheque did not contain any reason whatsoever as to why payment of the relevant cheque was being requested to be stopped. It had never been mentioned by the petitioner in the said letter that the said cheque had been stolen. No F.I.R. Had been lodged the petitioner regarding theft of the said cheque by any person till its dishonouring by the bank. It had never been mentioned by me to be quite intriguing that according to the document available on the record as Exhibit-DF it was the whole cheese book of the petitioner which had been lost by him but through the document Exhibit- DA the petitioner had requested for stoppage of payment of only one particular cheque and not in respect of all the cheques in the lost chequebook.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to a statement allegedly made by the complainant on 14.11.2006 before a Civil Court in connection with a suit filed by the complainant against the petitioner and it has been maintained by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said statement made by the complainant had gone some distance supporting the petitioner's stand regarding availability of the relevant cheque with the complainant for some time before its presentation before the bank for encashments I have however, noticed that the said statement of the complainant, had never been brought on the record of this case and the complainant had never been confronted with the said statement in the trial of the present criminal case. In this view of the matter the said statement of the complainant pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be used at this stage as a piece of evidence. It may be added that neither before the learned Trial Court nor during the pendency of the appeal any application had beer submitted by the petitioner seeking permission to bring the said statement on the record of this case or seeking production of additional evidence in that regard. The petitioner had been taking different stands at different stages vis-a-vis the cheque in issue and the amount involved in the relevant cheque is huge which factors tend to point towards intentions of the petitioner which may not be bona fide or honest.
5. The learned Courts below had attended to the evidence available on the record in some detail and after assessing and evaluating the evidence they had concurred in their finding regarding guilt of the petitioner. No particular or specific misreading or non-reading of the record on the part of the learned Courts below has been highlighted before this Court.
6. Apart from what has been observed above, no jurisdictional infirmity, illegality of approach, irregularity of procedure or perversity of reasoning on the part of the learned Courts below has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner so as to warrant an interference in the matter by this Court through exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The cheque in issue involved a huge amount of money and dishonouring of the same was likely to adversely and gravely affect the business of the complainant, and, thus, gravity of the matter cannot be ignored. In these circumstances, the sentence passed against the petitioner has not been found by me to be oppressive or excessive.
7. For what has been discussed above this revision petition is dismissed and the convictions and sentences of the petitioner recorded and upheld by the learned Courts below are maintained.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 01 of 2009
8. As the main revision petition has been dismissed by this Court today, therefore, this miscellaneous petition pertaining to interim relief has lost its relevance. Dismissed. Criminal revision petition dismissed.