8/28/2025

Bail Denied in 3 Million Bank Error Misappropriation & Dishonoured Cheque Case

Lahore High Court: Bail Denied in 3 Million Bank Error Misappropriation & Dishonoured Cheque Case

پس منظر

لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے ایک اہم فیصلہ دیتے ہوئے 3 ملین (30 لاکھ روپے) کی رقم کی غلطی سے ٹرانسفر اور اس کے بعد کی بددیانتی کے معاملے میں ضمانت بعد از گرفتاری کی درخواست مسترد کر دی۔

کیس کے مطابق بینک (MCB) کی تکنیکی غلطی سے 30 لاکھ روپے طارق رحمان چوہان کے اکاؤنٹ میں منتقل ہوگئے۔ اس نے اس میں سے 25 لاکھ روپے نکال لیے اور باقی رقم واپس کرنے کے بجائے بینک کو 30 لاکھ کا چیک دیا جو باؤنس ہوگیا کیونکہ اکاؤنٹ میں رقم موجود نہ تھی۔

عدالت میں مؤقف

ملزم کا مؤقف: یہ معاملہ محض بینک کی غلطی تھی، میرے خلاف کوئی جرم نہیں بنتا اور 489-F PPC ضمانت کے قابل ہے۔

بینک اور پراسیکیوشن کا مؤقف: ملزم نے جان بوجھ کر رقم ہڑپ کی اور بعد میں ایسا چیک دیا جو کیش نہ ہوسکا۔ اس پر 489-F PPC کے ساتھ ساتھ 406 PPC (امانت میں خیانت) بھی بنتی ہے۔

ہائی کورٹ کی قرار ں

1. ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ جب رقم کسی کے اکاؤنٹ میں غلطی سے ٹرانسفر ہو، تب بھی وہ رقم بطور امانت اس کے پاس سمجھی جاتی ہے۔

2. ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ ملزم نے بینک کی رقم نکال کر اور استعمال کر کے امانت میں خیانت (سیکشن 406 PPC) کی ہے۔

3. ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ ملزم کا دیا ہوا چیک باؤنس ہوا، لہٰذا 489-F PPC کا جرم بھی ثابت ہوتا ہے۔

4. ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ دونوں جرائم (406 اور 489-F) بیک وقت لاگو ہوسکتے ہیں۔

5. ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ اگرچہ یہ جرائم "prohibitory clause" میں نہیں آتے اور عام طور پر ضمانت مل جاتی ہے، لیکن عدالت کے پاس اختیار ہے کہ خاص حالات میں ضمانت انکار کر دے۔

6. ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ ملزم نے نہ صرف رقم ہڑپ کی بلکہ اپنے عمل پر ندامت بھی ظاہر نہ کی، اس لیے ضمانت مسترد کی جاتی ہے۔

نتیجہ

لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے درخواست گزار کی ضمانت بعد از گرفتاری مسترد کرتے ہوئے قرار دیا کہ ملزم اپنے ہی غلط عمل کا فائدہ نہیں اٹھا سکتا۔

Must read the Judgement

Form No: HCID-C-121

ORDER SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Crl. Mise. No. 43725-B of 2025

Tariq Rehman Chohan.

S.No. of order/proceeding.

Date of order/proceeding.

Versus

The State and another.

Order with signatures of Judge, and that of parties or counsel, where necessary.

18.08.2025.

Mr. Muhammad Usama Khaliq and Mr. Awais Bawar, Advocates for the petitioner.

Malik Ayaz Mehmood Khan, Advocate for the complainant.

Rana Tasawar Ali, Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab and Asif ASI with police record.

The petitioner (Tariq Rehman Chohan), being arrayed as an accused in case F.I.R. No.3287 of 2025, dated 23.05.2025, for offence under Sections 489-F of PPC, registered with Police Station Nawab Town, Lahore, has sought his post arrest bail, after the same was refused by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Lahore vide order dated 25.06.2025 and then by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore through order dated 09.07.2025.

2. Case set up by complainant Mubashar Hussain Naqvi, Operation Manager, MCB in the F.I.R. was to the effect that a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- stood transferred into the bank account of Tariq Rehman Chohan accused on account of technical mistake in the system of bank. Accused had already withdrawn. Rs.25,00,000/-, When he was contracted, he issued a cheque of Rs.30,00,000/- in favour of the bank in order to discharge his liability, but the cheque could not be en-cashed due to non-availability of funds in his bank account.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly focused on the averments that offence under Section 489-F of PPC was not falling within embargo contained under Section 497 of Cr.P.C.; moreover it was punishable only with fine in alternate; no offence was made out against the petitioner from the prima facie perusal of the F.I.R.; bank authorities blocked the account of petitioner without any plausible justification, as such fault was

Crl. Misc. No.43725-B of 2025

lying upon the shoulders of bank, which was sufficient to make present case that one of further inquiry.

4. Conversely, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for complainant opposed present petition vehemently and rigorously mainly on the grounds that petitioner earlier misappropriated the funds of bank, which stood transferred into his account mistakenly, thereafter he issued a cheque in order to discharge the liability of payment, but the cheque was dishonoured as the amount was not available in his account: mode and manner adopted by petitioner was meaningful; he was liable not only for offence under Section 489-F of PPC but also for offence under Section 406 thereof simultaneously.

5. Arguments heard. File perused.

6. Before touching upon the merits of the case I think it appropriate to adhere to the legal proposition first, which erupted during the arguments. Question to be determined by this Court was as to whether joint charge for offence under Section 489-F of PPC as well as offence under Section 406 of PPC pertaining to criminal breach of trust as defined in Section 405 of PPC could be brought against the petitioner.

I think it appropriate to throw a glance upon both the above said provisions, which are being produced below for the facility of reference.

"405. Criminal breach of trust: Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property, in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust."

"489-F. Dishonestly issuing a cheque: whoever dishonestly issues a cheque

Crl. Misc. No.43725-B of 2025

towards repayment of a loan or fulfilment of an obligation which is dishonoured on presentation, shall be punished 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 that the bank was at fault in not honouring the cheque."

When amount is received by a person into his bank account mistakenly or due to some error in the system of bank, normally it shall not be considered to be an entrustment within the meaning of Section 405 of PPC. Entrustment requires a deliberate act of placing confidence in another person to hold or use property for a specific purpose, which then must be followed by misappropriation or conversion by that person. Normally such like episode shall not fulfill the essential ingredients of Section 405 of PPC because the amount is not given by a person for safe keeping and specific fiduciary purpose, unless there is further evidence of dishonest intention to misappropriate the funds received by mistake.

7. In the case in hand amount received by petitioner was not meant to be utilized by him, but it was to be retained and preserved by him for return back to the bank, who was owner of the amount/fund. Petitioner was supposed and required to inform the sender/bank regarding the error and make arrangements for its return to the owner/bank.

8. The words "in any manner" used in Section 405 of PPC is of wider import. It extends to and covers all kinds of entrustment. It may be expressed or implied. When the amount/fund came into the account of petitioner, he acquired control and domain over the property and no other person could have access thereto. Said fact was carrying with it the implication that the bank shall continue to be its owner and he was legally as well as morally bound to return the same to its owner/bank, but petitioner put the funds/amount to his own use dishonestly. He caused wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the bank.

Crl. Misc. No.43725-B of 2025

Court has to see as to in what precise manner petitioner dealt with the funds coming under his control mistakenly.

9. As soon as petitioner became in a position to exercise his control over the property, the property stood entrusted to him impliedly, but he instead of returning the same to its owner/bank. withdrew an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- and embezzled the same, as such offence punishable under Section 406 of PPC fully attracted against him. When he was approached by bank authorities, he issued cheque of Rs.30,00,000/- in favour of the bank in order to discharge the liability of payment, which stood dishonoured, as such offence under Section 489-F of PPC was also made out against the petitioner.

10. As a result of above discussion, I am of the confirmed view that offence under Section 406 of PPC, although not applied upon the F.I.R., was also prima facie made out against the petitioner alongwith offence under Section 489-F of PPC and charge for both the above said offences can be brought together against the petitioner simultaneously.

11. So far as other submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, I am fully conscious of the fact that both the above said offences were carrying the penalty of imprisonment upto three years and seven years respectively, hence not falling within embargo contained in Section 497 of Cr.P.C. and bail is normally allowed in such like cases, but at the same time the Honourable Superior Courts were pleased to hold in plethora of the judgments that it is not a rule of universal application that bail should be allowed in each and every case not falling within prohibitory clause. Each case has to be seen in the light of its own peculiar circumstances. The Court may refuse the bail to an accused even in the cases not falling within the embargo, if exceptional circumstances of the case so require. If any reference in this regard is required that can be had from Shameel Ahmad v. The State' (2009 SCMR 174), Amir Sheikh v. The State (2012 YLR 2136).

Crl. Misc. No.43725-B of 2025

12. In the present case, petitioner after misappropriation of amount of the bank converted the same into his own use and thereafter issued the cheque for repayment of the above amount, which stood dishonoured. Thereafter, he claimed that offences were not falling within embargo, rather no offence was made out. He after commission of a mischief did not feel repentance, but justified the same and remained firm upon his stance. A person cannot be allowed to digest and enjoy the fruit of his own wrong. Peculiar and exceptional circumstances of the case do not permit me to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner despite of the fact that offences were not falling within embargo contained under Section 497 of Cr.P.C.

13. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition has no force, hence dismissed.

14. Needless to mention that any observation made in the above order is tentative in nature and shall not influence the learned trial court in any manner.

(TANVEER AHMAD SHEIKΗ) JUDGE

APPROVED FOR REPORTING.

"Shahzad Ahmad Nasir

JUDGE

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.