2011 P Cr (PLP)

SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, J.

Through this Constitutional Petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated7-10-2009 passed by the learned Special Court (Offences in Banks) Sindh at Karachi upon the application under sections 3 and 4 of the Offences In Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984 whereby learned Special Court (Offences in Banks) Sindh at Karachi has opined that the offence with which the respondent (petitioner in this petition) has been charged, is a scheduled offence and hence it is to be tried by the said Court. It is, inter alia, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged allegations levelled against the petitioner do not come within the definition of scheduled offence, as the petitioner did not commit any offence with the bank. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged Pay Order on the basis of which the alleged F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner not in possession of the complainant, which fact has been admitted by the husband of the complainant in his evidence, as according to him, the complainant has only photocopy of the said Pay Order and the original was missing. It is further stated by the learned counsel that in terms of Articles 75 and 76 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, primary or secondary evidence could not be taken into consideration on the basis of photocopies of the documents, which have no evidentiary value unless its contents are proved in accordance with law. On the other hand, Mr. Nazar Akbar, learned DAG has vehemently opposed the prayers made by the petitioner in the instant petition, as according to him, the impugned order has rightly been passed by the learned Special Court (Offences in Banks) Sindh at Karachi. He further contended that the offence with which the petitioner has been charged comes within the ambit of scheduled offence, as there is a manipulation in the Pay Order, which was issued by National Bank of Pakistan, Samanabad, Lahore only for Rs.250, which fact has been proved from the receipt issued by the said Bank. It is further stated by the learned DAG that there is no justification to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Special Court (Offences in Banks) Sindh at Karachi. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned DAG and perused the entire material available on record. Prima facie, it appears that the transaction between the parties was made through Pay Order, which was issued by the National Bank of Pakistan, Samanabad, Lahore, which was apparently manipulated by the petitioner. Though the petitioner did not commit any offence with the Bank, but the tampering is made in the official bank document, which shows that the transaction made by the petitioner through the Bank. We are of the considered view that the offence with which the petitioner has been charged falls within the definition of scheduled offence. Sections incorporated in the alleged F.I.R. lodged by the complainant very much come within the scheduled offence. We do not find any substance to interfere in the impugned order dated 7-10-2009 passed by the learned Special Court. (Offences in Banks) Sindh at Karachi. Forgoing are the reasons for our short order dated 24-3-2011, whereby we had dismissed this petition. H.B.T./M-74/K Petition dismissed.