MUHAMMAD GHAZANFAR KHAN, J.- On the application of complainant, an FIR under sections 419/420/489-F PPC was registered against the present accused, whereby he was arrested on 21.06.2013 and later on released on bail on 28.08.2013.
2. In the instant case, charge against the accused was framed on 01.10.2013 under above said sections of law. The prosecution examined seven witnesses in support of its version after closure of evidence of the prosecution, accused was examined under section 342 Cr.P.C. He was sentenced under all the three sections of law concurrently by both the courts below, to undergo R.I. for two years and Rs.10,000/- as fine and in default whereof he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of two months under section 419 PPC. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo one year R.I. and fine of Rs.10,000/- or in default thereof he will undergo two months S.I. under section 420 PPC. Similarly, under section 489-F PPC three years R.I. and Rs.20,000/- fine was imposed on him and in default of payment of fine the accused had to suffer six months simple imprisonment.
3. Feeling dissatisfied with the findings of both the Courts below, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition by praying that on acceptance of present petition, judgment and order of both the lower courts be set aside and the accused be acquitted of the charges.
4 Brief facts of the case are that before registration of the above said case against the accused vide FIR No.129, the petitioner while depicting himself as Director, FIA received huge amount from the complainant on the pretext of provision of employment to him in FIA. When the factum of personation became known to the complainant, he went to his house and petitioner gave him the cheque which was dishonoured on its presentation. Dishonour slip is available on the file as EX.PW 3/2.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and record of the case gone through.
6. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner has issued impugned cheque which was dishonoured on its presentation and accordingly the aforementioned case was registered under the above said section of law mentioned in chargesheet and FIR. The prosecution has examined seven witnesses in support of its claim followed by lengthy cross-examination but nothing material could be brought on record by the accused vis-a-viz issuance of the impugned cheque, account number of the accused and signature of the accused on the impugned cheque. The defence has failed to cross examine the witness of the prosecution on material points..
7. The cheque was not only exhibited without any objection from accused side but also that the accused had never disputed his signature on the cheque. Moreso, he never denied issuance of cheque nor he ever denied the account number in his name for which the cheque was issued.
Under the relevant provision of law, the only defence which the accused could have taken is that he had made arrangements with his bank to ensure that the cheque would be honoured and that bank was at fault in not honouring the cheque. Unfortunately, the" accused could neither prove, nor have taken these defences in his own statement, or in the cross-examination of the witnesses. The section 489-F provides that the burden of proof rest on the accused to prove, that he had made arrangements with his Bank to ensure that the cheque would be honoured and that the Bank was at fault in not honouring cheque. The section of law is reproduced here for ready reference: "489-F. Dishonestly issuing a cheque.--Whoever dishonestly issues a cheque towards re-payment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation which is dishonoured on presentation, shall be punishment with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine, or with both, unless he can establish, for which the burden of proof shall rest on him, that he had made arrangements with his bank to ensure that the cheque would be honoured and the bank was at fault in not honouring the cheque."
8. A look of above provision of law reveals that the burden securely lies on the accused-petitioner to prove the ingredients envisaged in section 489-F which is lacking in this case. Furthermore, the occasions of forgery and fraud has become so rampant that it is high time to check them and to take notice thereof, so, it is imperative to curb the fraudulent or dishonest issuance of cheques to cause dishonest gains. Both the courts below have rightly appraised the evidence and have rightly appreciated the law on the subject. The petitioner could not point out any illegality or infirmity in concurrent finding of courts below, hence, this revision petition stands dismissed.