P L D 1995 Karachi 320 (PLP)

ABDUR RAHIM KAZI, J.

This Criminal Revision has been directed against the order passed on 12-5-1994 by the respondent No. 1, directing the applicant that the amount of Rs.1,54,00,000 be handed over/delivered to United Bank Limited, Digri Branch of Mirpur Khas District A subject to their furnishing a bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.1,54,00,

000. Briefly, the facts relevant for the purpose of this Revision Application are that one Rasool Bux Shaikh, Zonal Head of United Bank Limited, lodged F.I.R. dated 24-8-1993 against Shaukat Ali Khan, the then Manager of U.B.L., Digri Branch, stating therein that the said Manager, after preparing forged and false Demand Drafts and Telegraphic Transfers, encashed the same through clearing from other branches and has, thus, caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.2,05,70,

000. Additionally, there is allegation that a block of D.D. containing 100 leaves, was also stolen by the said accused Shaukat Ali Khan, who prepared forged and false DDs under forged signatures payable at different Branches of the UBL and got the same deposited in FTC Branch, Karachi of National Bank of Pakistan, where a sum of Rs.1,35,20,000 is still lying. Investigation was initiated by the FIA and from the impugned order it appears that till the date of passing of the order dated 12-5.1994, even the interim challan in the case was not put up. However, the UBL had moved an f application under section 516/516-A, Cr.P.C. before the respondent No.l, praying for the delivery of the said amount from NBP, to the respondent No. L After giving notice to the NBP and hearing the Advocates, the Court was pleased to pass the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the present applicants have preferred this Revision Application. We have heard Mr. Gulzar Ahmed, Advocate for the applicants, and Mr. Muhammad Sadiq, Advocate for respondent No.3. None is present for respondents Nos.l and

2. The main contention raised by Mr. Gulzar Ahmed, Advocate for the applicant is that the order itself shows that the said amount is credited in the accounts of M/s. Bashir Ahmed Arain and Imtiaz Ahmed to the tune of Rs.77,23,490 and Rs.66,95,515 respectively, while the amount of Rs.10,00,000 is shown in account of sundry deposits. In these circumstances, the account holders were entitled to a notice of this application as the impugned order adversely affects their rights. Mr. Muhammad Sadiq, learned counsel for the respondent No.3, has referred to. the provisions of section 5 (5) of F.IA. Act, 1974 (Act VII of 1975), ` which reads as under :- "5(5).If, in the opinion of a member of the Agency conducting an investigation any property which is the subject-matter of the investigation is likely to be removed, transferred or otherwise dispose of before an order of the appropriate authority for its seizure in obtained, such member may, by order in writing, direct the owner of any person who is, for the time being, in possession thereof not to move, transfer or otherwise dispose of such property in any manner except with the previous permission of that member and such order shall be subject to any order made by the Court having jurisdiction in the matter." A plain reading of this provision will show that the Agency, while conducting an investigation is empowered to order in writing directing the owner or any person who, for the time being, is in possession of the property which is subject‑matter of the investigation, to refrain from transferring or otherwise disposing of such property in any manner except with the permission of that member of the Agency, which order shall be subject to any order made by the Court having jurisdiction. This provision clearly shows that the only direction' which should be given is to the extent of preventing of removal or transfer of the property involved and not for directing the transfer of the property to any other person claiming the same as it will involve the question of determination of title to the property which only a Civil Court can do, and not respondent No.l. Even otherwise, the said amount is admittedly credited in the account of M/s. Bashir Ahmed Arain and Imtiaz Ahmed and other sundry deposits and removal of that amount from their accounts would have adverse affect on their right and thus they would be entitled to notice before any such order is passed. It is established law that no adverse order can be passed against a party behind its back as the same would be violative of the principle of natural justice, one of Fundamental Rights of the citizens. Accordingly, eve set aside the impugned order. However, it will be open for the trial Court to pass any appropriate order, after giving due notice i to the concerned parties. N.H.Q./N‑546/K Petition accepted