Saturday, November 21, 2009

CASE LAWS ON SECTION 489-F PPC

CASE LAWS ON SECTION 489-F PPC
2005 and 2004

1. 2006 P Cr L J.157, 2005 P Cr L J.684 , 2005 YLR 1565 :
Petitioner in his application filed under section 22-A Cr PC . for registration of case for offence under section 489-F PPC, against the person who issued a cheque in favour of the petitioner and was bounced. But the Additional Session Judge dismissed his application on ground that which had introduced offence under Section 489-F PPC had died its natural death, and honorable High Court set aside the order of Additional Session Judge.

1.PLD 2005 Lah 607 (b):
Rational behind the enactment of Sec.489-F PPC. Does not call for a mechanical action immediately when a cheque is returned by a banker, but it used only in the matter of payment of loan, business transactions, genuine disputes and contractual obligations may not constitute for the offence.

2.2005 SCMR 306:
Quashing of F.I.R. Cheque was dishonored and complainant laughed an F.I.R. against the accused. Accused raised plea that the disputed entire amount was paid but from different account. F.I.R. was quashed.

3. 2005 P.Cr.L.J 144 :
Quashing of F.I.R. Cheque was dishonored and complainant laughed an F.I.R against the accused but during investigation he had been found prima-facie innocent and F.I.R was quashed.

4). 2004 YLR 2675:
Sec.489-F P.P.C. Bail Grant of.
Both accused and complainant were doing business with each other and issuance of some cheques could be in course of such business—even otherwise accused was not involved in a case falling within prohibitory clause of Sec.497. Cr.P.C. and grant of bail in such like cases was a rule and refusal was an exception and no exceptional circumstances existed in case for refusal of bail to him--- Nothing was to be recovered from accused and he could not be kept in jail for indefinite period---Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

1 comment:

  1. In my opinion the 489-F PPC has a rational that the holder of the dishonored cheaque must prove that there is a transaction in between the persons in dispute which has the nature to demand a payment from the issuer of the cheaque; then the lost cheaque argument die at its own dead.

    ReplyDelete