1976 P Cr (PLP)

I. A. Hashmi for Respondent No.

2. Date of hearing : 1st October 1975. The petitioner has filed this petition under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C., seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against him in the Court of Special Judge, Central, Karachi, under sections 409, 471 and 477‑A, P. P. C., read with section 5(2) of r‑ct 11 of 1947.

2. Briefly narrated, the facts forming the background of this case are that the petitioner was an officer serving National Bank of Pakistan as Manager of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Branch, Karachi. In his capacity of Manager he advanced certain loans and overdrafts, etc., to various parties. According to him most of these loans, overdrafts and cash credit limits were sanctioned by the Controlling Office of the National Bank of Pakistan which is commonly known as the Principal Office. The regular audit of the petitioner's branch was conducted but nothing illegal was discovered against him during the period from 1965 to 1970. in November 1968 one Mst. Sultan Jahan Begum, Proprietor of Overseas 'Trading Corporation who was wife of one Ansar Hussain, an ex‑employee of the bank, applied for loan. The application was sent to the Principal Office where it was duly processed and a loan of Rs. 15,00.') was sanctioned. Mst. Sultan Jahan Begum executed a promissory note in the sum of Rs. 15,000 in favour of her guarantor Tanveer Ahmed who in turn endorsed the same in favour of the Bank. Mat. Sultan Jaban Begum as well as Tanveer Ahmad delivered the said promissory note to the Bank under a delivery note jointly signed by them. It is further urged that on 31‑3‑1969 said Mst. Sultan Jahan Begum also executed a guarantee in favour of the bank. Earlier on 5‑3‑1969 Mst. Sultan Jahan Begum had executed an agreement of hypothecation hypothecating the stocks of Overseas Trading Corporation in favour of the Bank. A physical verification of the stocks was carried out by the inspection team of the Controlling Authority of the bank. It is further alleged that during this period the petitioner actively participated in Trade Union activities which caused annoyance to the senior staff of the Bank with the result that some of them were antagonised against him. A mock audit of petitioner's branch was conducted by the Controlling Authority and some allegations were levelled against him. Finally on '.9‑F‑1970, Mr. M. A. Jan, Regional Manager, National Bank of Pakistan, filed a written complaint against the petitioner in Golimar Police Station, Karachi with the allegations that it was discovered during the audit that account books of the Bank bad been falsified by the petitioner by incorporating absolutely incorrect entries. He had thus caused loss to the bank by granting unauthorised loans of huge amounts to various patties. The names of the parties were given in whose favour it was alleged that the loans were granted unauthorisedly. It was also alleged that Mst. Sultan Jahan Begum did not open her account in the petitioner's branch of the Bank nor did she sign any documents in respect of the said account whereas the books of the Bank showed that a loan was extended to her and a sum of Rs. 16,911-57 stood outstanding against her. However, it was stated in this complaint that the Bank was not in a position to verify the statement of Mst. Sultan Jahan Begum that she had not obtained any loan from the Bank.

3. After about four years of the filing of the complaint the petitioner was charged under above referred offences and a challan was submitted against him to the Court of Special Judge, Central, Karachi, on 19‑9‑1974. The charge‑sheet was only in respect of the loan given to Mst. Sultan Jahan Begum whereas it was silent in respect of other allegations contained in the F. I. R. It seems that the other allegations which are apparently general in nature had been dropped after due investigation. However, the charge in respect of loan granted to Mst. Sultan Jahan Begum appeared to be sustainable and therefore the petitioner was challaned on this count in the Court of the Special Judge, Central, Karachi.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn my attention to two facts which make the whole case doubtful. The first of these facts is that in the complaint made to the police (Annexure 'B') the complainant has himself stated that he was not in a position to verify as to whether the statement of Mst. Sultan Jahan Begum that she had never opened her account with the Bank and availed of the loan facility was correct or not. The exact words used in the complaint are reproduced below :‑ it may be stated that in this account an amount of Rs. 16,911.5 appears to have been granted as loan. The Bank is not in a position to verify the above statement of Mst. Sultan Jahan Begum but however the same is being submitted for full investigation. The second fact which shows that the complainant in all probability believed that the loan was extended to Mst. Sultan Jahan Begum is evident from the copy of the plaint in the suit instituted by the Bank against Mst. Sultan Jahan Begum for the recovery of Rs. 20,003,56 which is still pending in the Court of IV Senior Civil Judge/Assistant Session, Judge, Karachi. Copy of the plaint has been filed as Annexure 'D' with the petition. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that initially the complainant was not himself sure whether the statement of Mst. Sultan Jahan Begum that she had not opened the account with the Bank was correct or not. But the subsequent fact that the loan facility had been availed by Mst. Sultan Jahan Begum had been verified by the complainant otherwise he would not have filed suit for the recovery of the outstanding amount of Rs. 20,003.56 against her and her guarantor Tanveer Ahmed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has considerable weight. It is obvious that the Bank was not in a position to verify at the stage of filing of the complaint as to whether any loan was granted to Mst. Sultan Jahan Begum or not and that is why this fact was mentioned in the complaint itself. It seems that subsequent to the filing of the complaint the complainant verified this fact and after collecting evidence that the loan was in fact granted to Mst. Sultan Jahan Begum by the petitioner a suit was filed against her for the recovery of the aforesaid amount outstanding against her. If the Bank was not sure that the disputed amount was advanced to Mst. Sultan Jahan Begum the suit would not have been filed. These facts go to show that the petitioner did trot commit any criminal offence of misappropriation or of using forged documents as genuine or falsification of accounts. All what he did was that he extended a facility of loan to a bona fide customer of the Bank. If at all that the customer was not entitled to avail of the facility of loan under the rules of the Bank then the departmental action could be taken against the petitioner, but in no case his prosecution under sections 409, 471 and 477‑A P. P. C., could be sought. The institution of the case was also uncalled for as the Bank itself was not sure as to whether the petitioner had factually granted loan to Mst. Sultan Jahan Begum or not. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank has opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there watt no criminal case against the petitioner and the pendency of the criminal proceedings against him would amount to the abuse of the process of law but the learned counsel appearing for the State candidly conceded that it was a fit case in which the relief of quashment of the proceeding sought by the petitioner should be granted to him. By the perusal of the record I am of the view that the petitioner has not apparently committed any criminal act and the complainant by his own act of filing a civil suit against Mst. Sultan Jahan Begum has falsified his earlier stand that no loan was given to Mst. Sultan Jahan Begum and that the amount shown to have been given to her as loan was misappropriated by the petitioner and the documents pertaining to the loan were in genuine and the record of the Bank was falsified. If that had been the position the Banks would not have filed a suit for the recovery of the amount of loan in the civil Court. The very fact that the civil suit was tiled against Mst. Sultan Jahan Begum amply proves the fact that the complainant himself believed that the loan facility was in fact extended to Mst. Sultan Jahan Begum. However, if under the rules of the Bank she has not entitled to the said facility the petitioner could be proceeded against under the departmental rules, if any, but the criminal case could not be made out against him. It may also be added here that the institution of the criminal case was Wither unwarranted by the fact that at the stage when the complaint was filed by the bank, the complainant was not sure whether the statement of Mst. Sultan Jahan Begum that she had not drawn any loan from the bank was correct. Thus it is obvious that the complaint was filed only on the basis of mere suspicion and not on any solid grounds.

5. For the reasons discussed above I am of the view that the continuous of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to the abuse of the process Court. Accordingly, I quash the proceedings in question in exercise of the powers vested in me by virtue of section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. The bail bonds if any submitted by the petitioner for his release; on bail stand discharged. Proceedings quashed.