1995K86 (PLP)

ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, J.‑‑This petition has been moved by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:‑‑ "It is, therefore; prayed that this honourable may be pleased to:‑‑ (a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other order/direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents in the discharge of public duty to consideration of the petitioner as to his entitlement of bearer bonds more particularly known as Bearer National Fund Bonds with the Serial Nos.014264, 014265 and 014266 each of the face value of Rs.1,00,000 which have been stolen, in accordance with law, and order refund of the amount of above Government securities alongwith interest accrued, to the petitioner; ,(b) declare that any rule/notification issued under the Public Debt Act which are contrary/in violation of the Act are void and of no legal effect and thus unenforceable; (c) permanently restrain the respondents to encash the Government securities with the above serial numbers mentioned in the petition which have become stolen and dealing thereof may be stopped without consent of the petitioner; (d) pending hearing of this petition, ad interim order directing the respondent No.2 to suspend payment of interest and or maturity value of the Government securities * of the above serial numbers or prohibiting encashment thereof is solicited; (e) any other relief deemed proper with cost against the respondents." Briefly the facts relevant for the purposes of this petition are that a theft had taken place in the house of the petitioner wherein he had lost Bearer National Fund Bonds hereinafter referred to as "bonds" worth Rs.&:30,000 and an F.I.R was registered with Soldier Bazar Police Station as F.I.R No.341/1991 under section 458/34, P.P.C read with section 17(3), Offences Against Property ,(Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. Consequent up n the said F.IY the police had undertaken the investigation and arrested the culprits and made ‑recovery, part of the stolen property which consisted of some other articles as well, including the . bonds worth Rs.3,30,000 were recovered. In these circumstances, the petitioner had lodged his claim for issuance of duplicate bonds with regard to the remaining amount of Rs.3,00,

000. The respondent had sent a letter dated 21‑2‑1994 declining to issue .said duplicate bonds. Being aggrieved the petitioner instituted this petition. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Anwar Tariq counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abrar Hassan counsel for the respondent No.2. None is present for respondent No.l. The main contention raised 6y Mr. Tariq counsel for the petitioner is that under section 11 of the Public Debt Act, 1944, hereinafter returned to as `the Act' the petitioner would be entitled w issuance of duplicate as the said bonds had been stolen.. Mr. Abrar Hassan counsel for respondent No.2 has vehemently opposed the above. contention of the learned counsel and has submitted that these bonds are in the nature of Bearer Bonds and therefore, only the holder of these bonds would be entitled to the same and not the person who had previously owned these bonds. He has further submitted that there has been brought an amendment in the Rules whereby Rule 3(A) has been added which shows that no claim of any nature shall be entertained in case any bond is lost, stolen, destroyed, mutilated or burnt. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission of the learned counsel. It would be pertinent to reproduce the provisions of section 11(1) of the Act which reads as under:‑‑ "11.‑‑(1) If the person entitled to a Government security (not being security in a form notified in pursuance of paragraph (iv) of sub‑clause (a) of clause (2) of section 2 applies to ‑the bank alleging that the security has been lost, stolen or destroyed, or has been defaced or mutilated, the Bank may on proof to its satisfaction of the loss, theft, destruction defacement or mutilation of the security, subject to such conditions and on payment of such fees as may be prescribed, order the issue of a duplicate security payable to the applicant." This provision provides that a person entitled to Government Security would also be entitled to issuance of the duplicate security payable to him in case the security is stolen, lost or destroyed etc. In the present case it is not denied that the said bonds were stolen, rather from the recovery of the part amount it stands established. Section 2(2) of the Act provides the definition of Government Security which includes the bearer bond payable to bearer under 4‑tau,c (iii). In these circumstances, the petitioner would be entitled to issuance of duplicate security as provided in section 11(1) of the Act subject to enquiry l to be held by the respondents under sections 12 to 14 of the Act. As regards the abovementioned amendment relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 it may be observed that Rule 3 of the Bearer National Fund Bonds Rules, 1985 provides that these bonds being bearer in 13 character shall be transferable by delivery and Rule 4 provides that these bonds shall be sell‑able without endorsement across the counter by the State Bank of Pakistan. In the present case, the theft has taken place in the month of August, 1991 and the alleged amendment relied on by Mr. Abrar Hassan had been B made in the year 1992 and the same not being retrospective will not be applicable to the present case. In the light of the above discussion we are of the view that present petitioner would be entitled to issuance of duplicate bonds subject to result of the enquiry to be held by the respondents as required under sections 12 to 14 C of the Act. With these observations we allow this petition. However, there will be no order as to costs. AA./R‑2095/K Order accordingly.