The petitioner seeks quashment of FIR No, 110/2003 dated 11.7.2003 registered under Section 489/F PPC with Police Station Mnchi Gate Lahore on the complaint of one Nisar Ahmad Respondent No, (herein) alleging therein that he (Respondent No, 1) has to receive Rs, 9,00,000/- from the petitioner. The petitioner had issued him four cheques of MCB Shah Alam Branch Lahore, the detail of which is mentioned in Paragraph No, 4 of the writ petition and deliver the same to him.
Thereafter, when Respondent No, 1 presented the same in the Bank, they were dishonoured because of no cash in the account of the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the cheques mentioned in the FIR were issued and dishonoured much before the enforcement of amended Ordinance in PPC dated 25.0.2002 and from the contents of the FIR the offence under Section 489-F PPC is not constituted.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant as well as state when confronted with this legal aspect of the case could not respond. They argued that offence of cheating by the petitioner has been committed and the case is covered under Sections 420, 468, 471 PPC. They relied upon cases of Ch. Pervaiz Elahi vs. Federation of Pakistan etc. (PLJ 1995 Lahore 429 (DB), Mirza Ishtiaq Hussain vs. Syed Abdul Qadir (1970 Law Notes 757) and Abdul Karim Butt vs. Abdul Qayyum (1972 Pak. Crl.L.J. 1182).
4. I have heard both sides and perused the record.
5. The amended, Section 489-F PPC read as under for ready reference:-- "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 punishable 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 thatthe bank was at fault in not honouring the cheque." (This' amendment had been inserted in PPC by Ordinance LXXXV of 2002 dated 25.10.2002).
It is settled proposition of law that any act or statute promulgated by the legislature shall be effective immediately from the date of enforcement and it has no retrospective effect unless provided in the law. In this context reference can be made to the cases of Province of East Pakistan vs. Sharafatullah (PLD 1970 SC 514), and The Chief Land Commissioner Sind vs. Ghulam Haider Shah (1988 SCM R 715).
6. The cheques mentioned in the FIR were issued on 16.2.2001, 25.2.2001, 16.3.2001 and 25.3.2001 respectively and these were presented in the Bank for encashment but returned with the remarks that there was no amount in the account of the petitioner and thus were dishonoured on 4.5.2001 and 16.5.2001. At the time of issuing of cheques and declaring them dishonoured the offence U/S. 489-F PPC was not provided in PPC. The amended Ordinance, whereby, the said offence has been added in the law. was issued and enforced much after the alleged occurrence, hence, the case is not covered within the ambit of provision of Section 489-F PPC. No other offence has been added in the FIR.
7.For the foregoing reasons, I am convinced that said offence against the petitioner is not made out, so, this writ petition is accepted and the said FIR is declared to have been lodged illegally and of no legal effect, hence, quashed.