IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Criminal Revision Application No. S- 20 of 2023.
Applicant : Muhammad Tasleem Arain through Mr.Asif Ali Abdul Razak Soomro, Advocate.
Respondent No.1 : The State through Mr.Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G.
Respondent No.2 : Kashif Fayaz through Mr.Atta Hussain Chandio, Advocate.
Date of hearing : 14.4.2025.
Date of order : 14.4.2025.
J U D G M E N T
AMJAD ALI SAHITO-J.:- Through the instant Criminal Revision Application, the applicant, Muhammad Tasleem Arain, seeks to impugn the legality, propriety, and correctness of the judgment dated 21.02.2023, rendered by the learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Ratodero, in Criminal Case No. 43 of 2021 titled State v. Muhammad Tasleem, arising out of FIR No. 13 of 2021 registered at Police Station Ratodero under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). Vide the impugned judgment, the applicant was convicted under Section 489-F, PPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of two (02) years, without the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.). The said conviction and sentence were subsequently upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratodero, vide judgment dated 18.03.2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2023.
2. The brief facts, as stated in the prosecution case, are that the complainant allegedly invested an amount of Rs. 7,000,000/- in a land plotting business in partnership with the accused/applicant. Subsequently, the complainant demanded return of the said invested amount in light of his brother’s impending marriage. In response, the applicant, after providing repeated false assurances, issued a cheque amounting to Rs.5,500,000/-, drawn on Habib Bank Limited, Ratodero Branch. Upon presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured, as per the return memo dated 31.12.2020. Consequently, an FIR was lodged against the applicant in respect thereof.
3. During the course of the proceedings, the applicant/accused was declared a proclaimed offender. Nevertheless, the learned Trial Court continued with the trial in his absence and recorded the statement of PW-1, the complainant Kashif Fayaz. Thereafter, upon a statement filed by the prosecution, the matter was consigned to the dormant file. Subsequently, after having remained absconding for a considerable period, the applicant surrendered before the learned Trial Court on 09.10.2021, having secured pre-arrest bail. Thereafter, on 20.10.2021, a formal charge was framed against him.
4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Kashif Fayaz, PW-2 Bilal Fayaz, PW-3 Abdul Waheed, and PW-4 Ghazain Ali, whereafter the prosecution closed its evidence. In his statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant admitted to having received the amount in question and acknowledged partial repayment of Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.11,50,000/-, while also expressing his willingness to return the outstanding balance. This constituted a partial admission of liability on his part.
5. Upon thorough evaluation of the evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the applicant as per the judgment dated 21.02.2023. The said conviction was challenged by the applicant through Criminal Appeal No. 01/2023. However, after hearing arguments from both sides and carefully reappraising the findings of the Trial Court, the learned Appellate Court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 18.03.2023.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned judgments rendered by the two courts below are unduly harsh and suffer from legal infirmities, inasmuch as both courts failed to appreciate that the applicant had repaid a substantial portion of the disputed amount and had also expressed his willingness to discharge the remaining liability. It was further submitted that the cheque in question was issued merely as security and was subsequently misused by the complainant, despite having received part payments. The learned counsel further argued that the evidence produced by the prosecution was insufficient to sustain a conviction, and as such, the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below are liable to be set aside.
7. Conversely, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General, duly assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, opposed the revision petition and supported the concurrent findings of both the trial and appellate courts.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have undertaken a careful examination of the available record with their assistance.
9. A plain reading of Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reveals that the High Court is vested with the authority to call for the record of any proceedings from subordinate criminal courts to ascertain the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence, or order passed therein. Accordingly, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under the said provisions, it is incumbent upon the applicant to establish that the impugned order is erroneous, illegal, or lacking in propriety, and that the findings recorded by the subordinate court are not in accordance with law.
10. A bare perusal of the judgments passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court demonstrates that the findings of both forums are based on cogent reasoning and a proper appreciation of the evidence available on record.
11. I have also carefully examined the record and the evidence adduced before the learned Trial Court, which reflects that the prosecution's case against the applicant/accused, Muhammad Tasleem, is that he was engaged in the business of A.D. Food Slanty in Shikarpur and was also involved in real estate dealings. The complainant invested a sum of Rs. 70,00,000/- in the business of the applicant/accused. Subsequently, the complainant required funds for the marriage of his younger brother, namely Fayaz, and demanded the return of his invested amount. In response, the applicant issued a cheque amounting to Rs. 55,00,000/-, which, upon being presented for encashment, was dishonoured. The dishonour of said cheque squarely attracts the ingredients of Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code. It is pertinent to mention that the applicant/accused did not dispute the issuance of the cheque or the authenticity of his signature thereon.
12. In his statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant/accused admitted the existence of a business relationship between him and the complainant, and also acknowledged having issued the cheque in question to the complainant. However, he claimed that the cheque was issued merely as security. Upon being confronted, learned counsel for the applicant was unable to demonstrate that any such suggestion regarding the cheque being for security purposes was put to the complainant during the recording of his evidence, to which he responded in the negative. The applicant not only absconded during the trial but also failed to repay the full amount. His admission of partial repayment during the course of proceedings further corroborates the prosecution’s case.
13. In view of the foregoing, it is evident that the prosecution has successfully established its case against the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to point out any material illegality or substantial irregularity committed by either the learned Trial Court or the learned Appellate Court in the passing of the impugned judgments. Both judgments appear to be based on sound appreciation of evidence and do not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence awarded to the applicant, Muhammad Tasleem Arain, by the learned Trial Court and upheld by the learned Appellate Court, are hereby maintained. The instant Criminal Revision Application, being devoid of merit, was dismissed through a short order dated 14.04.2025. The applicant was taken into custody and remanded to jail to serve out the remainder of his sentence.
14. These are the reasons for the short order dated 14.04.2025.
JUDGE
Shabir/P.S