ORDER SHEET
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI
Cr.
Misc. Application No.D-10 of 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Order with signature(s) of Judge(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) For Katcha Peshi
2) For hearing of M. A. No.285/2013 (Stay)
-----------------------
24.04.2013
Mr.
Muhammad Iqbal Chaudhry,
Advocate.
Mr.
Dilawar Hussain, Standing
Counsel.
----------------------------------------------------
Through this application, applicant
has called in question order dated 14th December, 2012 whereby his
application under Section 249-A Cr.PC was dismissed by the Special Court
(Offences in Banks) Sindh at Karachi.
Counsel for the applicant contends
that the alleged forged and fabricated cheque was
deposited by the applicant in his own account and it is against rule of
prudence that if the applicant knew that this cheque
is forged and fabricated he should not have deposited cheque
in his own account. He says that in fact a welfare organization by the name of
“Welfare Group” registered with the Government of Punjab was donating Rs.50,900/- to the poor people against receipt of Rs.1,600/- as
process charges and the applicant after payment of process charges has received
cheque without knowing that it is a fake and
fabricated cheque, therefore, the proceedings against
the applicant are liable to be quashed.
On the other hand, learned Standing
Counsel has opposed quashment and has supported the
impugned order by inviting our attention to the portion of order which records
that the applicant was Assistant Manager at PICT and had deposited forged cheque of Rs.50,900/- in his
account. Per Standing Counsel first of all the
Assistant Manager would not accept the donation and it is not a fit case for quashment.
We have heard the learned counsel for
the respective parties and perused the record.
There is no denial that forged and
fabricated cheque of Rs.50,900/-
was deposited by the applicant in his own account and the burden to prove that
it was a donation squarely lies on the applicant. So far as the record is
concerned it has been asserted that the applicant in connivance with the
welfare organization/co-accused presented false document as genuine. This Court
in exceptional cases can exercise jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. Main
consideration to be kept in view would be whether the continuance of the
proceedings before the trial Court would be a futile exercise, wastage of time
and abuse of the process of the Court or not, and if on the basis of facts
admitted and patent on the record no offence is made out then it would amount
to the abuse of the process of law. In this case an opportunity is to be
provided to the prosecution to prove connivance between the applicant and
principal accused. No case for quashment of the
proceedings in this case is made out. Therefore, at this juncture, we do not
find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and therefore dismiss this
application.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Gulsher/PA