Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL GHAFOOR VS Respondent: THE STATE
1992 P Cr
1992 P Cr. L J 2457
[Karachi]
Before Qaiser Ahmed Hamidi, J
ABDUL GHAFOOR---Appellant
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.105 of 1992, decided on 18th May, 1992:
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 426---Penal Code (XLV of 180(1), Ss.489-B & 489-C---Suspension of sentence---Mere look at the counterfeit currency notes prima facie did not convince that the same were counterfeit so as. to raise a presumption that accused knew or had reason to believe that the said currency notes were counterfeit---Sentence awarded to accused was consequently suspended and he was released on bail.
Sattu Khan and others v. The State 1988 S C M R 241; Ali Asghar and another v. The State 1991 P Cr. L J 746; M. Mammutti v. The State of Karnataka A I R 1979 SC 1705; Hasan v. The State 1984 P Cr. L J 1281 and Tariq v. The State 1991 M L D 2173 ref.
Sardar Muhammad Ishaque for Appellant.
Abdul Hakeem Khan H. Bijarani AA.-G. for the State.
ORDER
Appellant Abdul Ghafoor who was convicted for the offence under sections 489-B and 489-C, P.P.C. to suffer R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs.50,000 and to suffer R.I. for 7 years and a fine of Rs.50,000 respectively, has applied for the suspension of the sentence mainly on the ground that co-accused Abdul Ghafoor Bhatti, who was found guilty for the offence under section 489-C, P.P.C. was allowed bail by this Court.
2. I have heard Mr. Sardar Muhammad Ishaque, learned counsel for appellant and Mr. Abdul Hakeern Khan H. Bijarani, learned A.A.-G. for State. The latter has opposed the application for suspension of sentence.
3. The learned counsel for appellant has assailed the finding of the trial Court and to support his contention he has placed reliance upon the cases of Sattu Khan and others v. The State reported in 1988 S C M R 241 and Ali Asghar and another v. The State reported in 1991 P Cr. L J 746 in an attempt to satisfy this Court that the finding on merits can be examined while deciding an application for suspension of sentence. The learned counsel for appellant has also placed reliance upon the cases of M. Mammutti v. The State of Karnataka reported in A I R 1979 SC 1705, Hasan v. The State reported in 1984 P Cr. L J 1281 and Tariq v. The State reported in 1991 M L D 2173. In the first cited authority the Supreme Court of India held that where the counterfeit currency notes were of such nature that mere look at them would not convince anybody that they were counterfeit, then the presumption that accused knew or had reason to believe that the same were counterfeit cannot be drawn.
4. Respectfully following the rule laid down in the above-cited judgments, I am of the tentative view that the evidence to this effect is lacking in this case and consequently, the appellant is entitled to the grant of bail. Accordingly, the application made under section 426, Cr.P.C. is granted and 8 the sentence awarded to appellant is suspended, who shall be released on bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rs. one lac) with two sureties o1 Rs.50,000 each and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court.
N.H.Q./A-1217/K Sentence suspended.