IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Criminal Petition No.551 of 2020  
(Against the order dated 28.04.2020 passed by 
the Islamabad High Court Islamabad in Crl. Rev. 
No.24/2020) 
 
Mehmood Qaisar 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
The State & another  
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Maulvi Anwar ul Haq, ASC 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, ASC 
 
For the State:  
Mr. Niaz Ullah Khan Niazi,  
 
Advocate 
General 
Islamabad 
with 
Zulfiqar Ali, ASI, PS. I-9, Islamabad 
 
For the Respondent(s):  
 Jam Khurshid Ahmed, ASC 
 
Date of hearing: 
17.09.2020. 
ORDER 
 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Indicted under section 
489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, the petitioner, was returned a 
guilty verdict by a learned Magistrate at Islamabad vide judgment 
dated 26.11.2019; he was sentenced to 3-years rigorous imprisonment, 
maintained throughout.  
2. 
 
  According to the prosecution, the petitioner issued a bank 
cheque in the sum of Rs.30,50,000/- to Muhammad Irfan complainant 
towards payment of sale consideration of a vehicle, bounced upon 
presentation.  
3. 
 
Besides the witnesses, prosecution adduced documentary 
evidence comprising photocopies of the impugned cheque and bank 
slip, duly verified by Zulfiqar Ali ASI (PW-3) from Bank Manager 
Mansoor Ali who appeared before the Court as PW-1 to confirm the 
transaction. Agreement Ex.PC is also part of the record to establish 
purchase of complainant’s vehicle by the petitioner. Petitioner 
confronted prosecution evidence with an unsubstantiated plea of 
innocence with copies of applications moved by the complainant to the 
Crl. P. No.551  of 2020 
2
Excise & Taxation Officer Islamabad confirming the transaction in 
retrospect.  
4. 
 
Learned 
counsel 
for 
the 
petitioner, 
after 
disputing 
production of photocopies of the bounced cheque and bank slip, 
alternately pleaded for the reduction of sentence to the period already 
undergone, a request contested by the learned Law Officer with the 
assistance of learned counsel for the complainant. Conceding 
production of photocopies, the learned Law Officer argued that 
Investigating Officer had verified the documents as true copies of the 
originals, required in a summary suit for the recovery of amount under 
Order XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908; it is further argued 
that the bank manager confirmed presentation of the instrument and, 
thus, prosecution successfully established the issuance of a cheque 
from petitioner’s account towards fulfillment of a financial obligation 
and its failure upon presentation. Adverting to the plea for reduction of 
sentence, the learned Law Officer presented details of no less than five 
other cases of identical nature pending in different courts to argue that 
the petitioner being an habitual offender was not entitled to any 
leniency.  
5. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
6. 
 
The bank manager confirmed issuance of the impugned 
cheque and its presentation, bounced twice for lack of balance; he has 
also confirmed verification of dishonoured cheque produced before him 
by the Investigating Officer. Even otherwise, issuance of the impugned 
bank cheque by the petitioner is not disputed and, thus, objection 
carries no weight. Similarly, registration of five other cases of identical 
nature is also a fact beyond dispute and, thus, it would be rather 
unconscionable, in circumstances, to reduce a legal sentence rightly 
awarded by the learned Magistrate, considered appropriate both by the 
learned Sessions Judge as well as the learned Judge-in-Chamber. 
Petition fails. Leave declined.     
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
17th September, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/- 
