2006 PLP 625 (CLD)
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN and others — Petitioners Versus Mian ASIM FAREED and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 625 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, JJ |
| Parties | INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN and others — Petitioners Versus Mian ASIM FAREED and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 625 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 625 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 625 (CLD) (INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN and others — Petitioners Versus Mian ASIM FAREED and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Abid Aziz Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
- Akhtar Ali Qureshi, A.A.-G. with Mian Abdul Qayyum Anjum, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Ikram Khan, D.S.P. Investigation, Kasur for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 7(4)-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.379, 406 & 420
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Quashing of F.I.R.
Registration of F.I.R. and taking of cognizance
High Court, in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, quashed F.I.R. on the ground that it was registered in violation of the provisions of S.7(4) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001
No order for quashing of F.I.R. could be passed nor the same could be approved in absence of any finding that the offences mentioned in F.I.R. were false and malicious and in absence of a finding that if a particular forum or mode had been prescribed with respect to taking of cognizance of an offence then the same also implied prohibition regarding the registration of F.I.R.
Registration of F.I.R. and taking of cognizance of cases were two distinct and independent concepts under the criminal law
If the intention of law-maker was to put any clog on the registration of F.I.R. then the Legislature would have said so specifically and that if the law put a condition only on the taking of cognizance then it could never be read to imply prohibition on registration of FIRs.
High Court did not pass legal and valid order
Supreme Court converted petition for leave to appeal into appeal and set aside the order passed by High Court
Appeal was allowed.
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.
The F.I.R. in question had been recorded for the alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 420, 406 and 379, P.P.C. at the instance of an officer of the Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan but had been quashed by the learned High Court only on the ground that section 7(4) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance No.XLVI of 2001 prescribed that it was only a Banking Court which could take cognizance of the offence under the Ordinance and that also on a complaint in writing made by a person authorized by the Bank in that behalf and that in the circumstances, recording of .an F.I.R. in the matter could not be sustained.
2. In the absence of any finding that the above mentioned offences mentioned in the F.I.R. were false and malicious and in the absence of a finding that if a particular forum or mode had been prescribed with respect to the taking of cognizance of an offence then the same also implied prohibition regarding the registration of an F.I.R., no such order could be passed nor the same could be approved. Needless to add that the registration of an F.I.R. and taking of cognizance of cases were two distinct and independent concepts under the criminal law; that if the intention of the law-maker was to put any clog on the registration of an F.I.R. then the Legislature would have said so specifically and that if the law put a condition only on the A taking of cognizance then it can never be read to imply prohibition on registration of F.I.Rs.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, we find that the impugned order had not been legally and validly passed. In the circumstances, this petition is converted into an appeal which is allowed as a result whereof the said order dated 23-12-2004 passed by the learned High Court in Writ Petition No.1181 of 2004 is set aside. M.H./I-2/SC??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed.