1992 PLP 546 (MLD)
Inspection Department‑‑‑Complainant Versus Messrs CAPITAL TRADING COMPANY and 4 others‑‑‑Accused
| Citation | 1992 PLP 546 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Qaiser Ahmed Hamidi, J |
| Parties | Inspection Department‑‑‑Complainant Versus Messrs CAPITAL TRADING COMPANY and 4 others‑‑‑Accused |
| Primary Law | Criminal trial |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 546 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal trial as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 546 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Qaiser Ahmed Hamidi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 546 (MLD) (Inspection Department‑‑‑Complainant Versus Messrs CAPITAL TRADING COMPANY and 4 others‑‑‑Accused). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 7th March, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Banking Companies Ordinance (LVII of 1962)‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss.27(1), 43‑A & 83(1‑c)‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Charge against accused was that they being partners of a Trading Company, when called upon by complainant, State Bank of Pakistan, under S.43‑A of Ordinance, 1962, through directive, to furnish information, documents or record respecting their business to fund out if they were doing banking business is contravention of S.27(1) of Ordinance, they had failed to do so‑‑‑Accused were charged for committing offence punishable under S.83(1‑C) of the Ordinance‑‑‑Directive, defiance of which was alleged, was issued to accused, soon after formation of Trading Company by accused, thus they were unable to produce relative record to the State Bank‑‑‑Accused admittedly invited representatives of complainant to inspect their office as and when desired‑‑‑None of authorised officers of the State Bank was examined by prosecution to prove that accused avoided or refused to produce relevant record‑‑‑Even Senior Deputy Director of State Bank, had not visited office of accused at any time‑‑‑Complainant admittedly lead failed to produce evidence to satisfy Court that case was of deliberate defiance of directives issued by State Bank‑‑‑Prosecution having failed to prove case against accused beyond any reasonable doubt, they were acquitted of charge extending benefit of doubt. ‑‑‑‑Charge‑‑Proof‑‑‑Only standard of proof for all charges was that prosecution must prove case against accused beyond all reasonable doubts‑‑‑Conviction must stand or fall on strength of prosecution and not on weakness of defence. Muhammad Shibli for Complainant. M.G. Dastgir for Accused Nos. 4 and 5.
Judgment & Decree
(iii) What offence, if any, is committed by the accused or any one of them?
7. My findings on the above points are as follows:‑‑‑ ? (i) Affirmative. (ii) Not proved. (iii) No offence. REASONS
8. POINT NO.1. ? Mian Abdul Qadir, Senior Deputy Director, State Bank of Pakistan (P.W.1) has produced a copy of partnership deed, dated 4‑5‑1987 (Exh. 9), which makes it clear that both accused MA. Rauf Tahir and Muhammad Khalil are partners of Messrs Capital Trading Company, the accused No.l. Both the accused have admitted this fact in their statements recorded under section 342,, Cr.P.C. and under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. There is, therefore, no difficulty in answering this point in affirmative.
9. POINTS NOS.2 AND
3. Both these points are inter connected, hence for the sake of convenience they are being discussed together.
10. Mian Abdul Qadir, Senior Deputy Director (P.W.1) has produced the directive, dated 16‑5‑1987 (Exh.ll) issued under section 43‑A of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962. This directive was issued on the 12th day of the execution of partnership deed (Exh.9) and was replied vide (Exh.12) in the? following words: ‑‑ "We submit as under: ‑‑ (1) That we are not transacting any banking business, neither have the plans to do it. (2) The firm is newly established and has not opened a banking account with any bank till today. (3) As the firm has not transacted any business and has not taken money from any person/persons, so the question of maintaining cash books/ledgers/investors book does not arise. (4) We have advertised for the prospective financers to invest money in our business on profit/loss sharing basis enabling us to expand our business. Your representatives are welcome to visit our office as and when they desire."
11. The contents of the above letter are self‑explanatory. The directive (Exh.II) was issued soon after the formation of the firm and consequently the accused were unable to produce the relevant record/cash books etc. They also invited the representatives of the complainant to inspect the office, as and when desired. None of the authorised officers was examined by the prosecution to prove that the accused avoided/refused to produce the relevant record. Admittedly Mian Abdul Qadir, Senior Deputy Director (P.W.1) had not visited the office of accused at any time. In fact the evidence of Mian Abdul Qadir (P.W.1) shows that Messrs S.M. Khursheed and Mohiuddin Khan had visited: the office of accused. Both of them were, however, not put in the witness‑box so as to satisfy this Court that it was a case of deliberate defiance of the directives issued by the State Bank of Pakistan by the accused. In the absence of any direct evidence, which was admittedly available with the prosecution no reliance can be placed upon the evidence of Mian Abdul Qadir, Senior Deputy Director (P.W.1) in the present circumstances.
12. In criminal cases there is only one standard of proof for all charges, that the prosecution must prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. A conviction must stand or fall on the strength of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the defence.
13. Having regard to the above factual position, I am clear in my mind that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt is extended to both the accused and they are acquitted accordingly. The accused are discharged from their P.R. bonds. H.B.T./S‑783/K?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Accused acquitted.