2003 PLP 841 (MLD)

TANVIR BASHIR ANSARI, J.

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 7-7-1996 passed by the Presiding Officer, Special Court (Offences Against Banks) Rawalpindi whereby the application moved under section 4(6) of the Offences in Respect of Banks Ordinance IX of 1984 by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. The facts are that the petitioner/accused was challaned to the Special Court (Offence Against Banks), Rawalpindi in case F. I. R. No. 10 of 1995 dated 29-8-1995 registered under sections 409/420/468/467/471 read with sections 3 and 4, P.P.C.

3. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per the F.I.R., it is alleged that the petitioner who was serving as Foreign Counter Clerk in A1-Rajhi Commercial Foreign Exchange, Saudi Arabia had forged various cheques and got the same encashed from the Habib Bank Limited, Cantonment Branch, Rawalpindi and Habib Bank Limited, Central Branch, Karachi where the petitioner maintained separate accounts. The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Special Courts (Offences Against Banks) on the ground that even according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioner was not liable to be tried before the Special Courts (Offences Against Banks). He referred to the definition of Bank as given in the Ordinance IX of 1984 and contended that the jurisdiction of the Special Court constituted under the said Ordinance only extended to a scheduled offence committed in respect of the business of a scheduled Bank. According to the learned counsel, Al-Rajhi Commercial Foreign Exchange, Saudi Arabia was not a Bank or a scheduled Bank as defined in the Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974, State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956 or Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962. Any offence in respect of the business of Al-Rajhi Commercial Foreign Exchange shall thus be not liable to be tried before the Special Court. It is further contended that the petitioner maintained an account with the Habib Bank Limited, Cantonment Branch, Rawalpindi and Habib Bank Limited, Central Branch, Karachi and the mere fact that the petitioner deposited the cheques in his account in the said Banks from where he encashed the cheques, it would not amount to an offence in respect of the business of the said Bank. Putting it differently, it was contended that in this view of the matter, the Special Court constituted under the Ordinance IX of 1984 had no jurisdiction in the matter.

4. Qazi Ahmad Naeem Qureshi, learned Federal Counsel on the other hand, submitted that notwithstanding the fact that the original forgery was committed at Al-Rajhi Commercial Foreign Exchange, Saudi Arabia as the petitioner had deposited the disputed cheques in his account in the Habib Bank Limited and had been able to en cash the same, it was only through the Banking business that the cheques pertaining to Al -Rajhi Commercial Foreign Exchange, Saudi Arabia were encashed. According to the learned Federal Counsel, such an offence was fully triable by the Special Court.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is not denied that the offences made out by the prosecution against the petitioner fall within the ambit of scheduled offences. It would not make any difference if the forgery in preparing the cheques was allegedly committed at Al-Rajhi Commercial Foreign Exchange, Saudi Arabia. In fact, the preparing of the cheques and presenting them for encashment in the Habib Bank Limited, Cantonment Branch, Rawalpindi and Habib Bank Limited, Central Branch, Karachi which are Branches of a scheduled Bank are series of acts constituting the same transaction. The collection of the amount through the Agency of a scheduled Bank on the basis of cheques which are alleged to be forged and which pertained to a foreign institution would certainly be in connection with the business of the scheduled Bank which in the present case is the Habib Bank Limited, According to sections 2(d), 4(1) and 6 of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984) there are three prerequisites to invoke the jurisdiction of the Special Court of Offences in Banks. These are as under: -- (a) The offence should be a scheduled offence; (b) The offence should be in respect of a scheduled Bank; and (c) The offence should relate to the business of a scheduled Bank.

6. Keeping in view the aforementioned criteria the case in hand fulfils all the three conditions and as these conditions are satisfied, the Special Court would possess the necessary jurisdiction to try persons accused of such offences.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the cases of Mushtaq Hussain Shah v. The State 1986 Cr.LJ 567, The State v. Aizaz Ahmad and another 1986 PCr.LJ 561, Overseas Pak Credit and Investment Corporation (Pvt.) Limited v. Governor, State Bank of Pakistan and another 1988 CLC 1438 and A. Habib Ahmad v. M.K.G. Scott Christian and 5 others PLD 1992 SC

353. It is correct that if prima facie the offence had been committed, the ordinary course of trial before the Court is not to be allowed to be deflected through an approach to a Special Court. However, when an offence is a scheduled offence which has been committed in respect of or in connection with the business of a scheduled Bank, the jurisdiction of the Special Court shall be squarely invoked. According to the rule laid down in A. Habib Bank Ahmad's case (supra) the expression "business of a bank" connotes a very wide scope and that according to modern extending banks practices, all conceivable bank transactions would mean and imply business of a Bank. In the instant case, it would not have been possible for the petitioner to encash his cheques, had he not resorted to the ordinary business of the Bank i.e. by depositing the cheque in his account which was processed and encashed through that process from the Al-Rajhi Commercial Foreign Exchange, Saudi Arabia.

8. In this view of the matter,, we find no merit in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed.

9. At this stage, we may also refer to an application filed under Order 1, rule 10, C.P.C. on behalf of Al-Rajhi Commercial Foreign Exchange, Saudi Arabia through Sh. Anwar-ul-Haque, Advocate. As the main writ petition is being dismissed by us, no separate observations upon this application are called for which also dismissed. H.B.T./G-249/L Petition dismissed.