INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN and others vs Mian ASIM
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that quashed an F.I.R. registered for offences under sections 420, 406, and 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code (P.P.C.). The High Court had quashed the F.I.R. based on the reasoning that section 7(4) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, mandated that only a Banking Court could take cognizance of offences under the Ordinance, and only upon a written complaint by an authorized person, thereby precluding the registration of an F.I.R. The Supreme Court examined whether the procedural requirements for a Banking Court to take cognizance of an offence under the Ordinance implicitly prohibited the registration of an F.I.R. for the same conduct. The Court held that the registration of an F.I.R. and the taking of judicial cognizance are distinct and independent legal concepts. It established the principle that unless the legislature explicitly imposes a clog on the registration of an F.I.R., procedural conditions governing the taking of cognizance by a court cannot be interpreted as a prohibition against the initial registration of an F.I.R.
- Does the requirement for a Banking Court to take cognizance of an offence under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, prohibit the registration of an F.I.R. for the same offence?
- Are the registration of an F.I.R. and the taking of cognizance by a court distinct and independent concepts under criminal law?
- Can a statutory condition regarding the taking of cognizance be read to imply a prohibition on the registration of an F.I.R.?
- Section 420 P.P.C.
- Section 406 P.P.C.
- Section 379 P.P.C.
- Section 7(4) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001
ORDER
' 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 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.
Cited by 25 cases
- The State vs Muhammad Ishaque 2023 LHC 1443
- Muhammad Shahbaz Shabeer vs Additional Sessions Judge and others 2022 PLJ Islamabad 200
- Muhammad Shahbaz Shabeer vs Additional Sessions Judge and 5 others 2023 PCRLJ 810
- Muhammad Sohail vs Station House Officer, Police Station, PESCO, Peshawar and 2 others 2024 PCRLJ 722
- Zeeshan Anjum vs The State and others 2022 MLD 1091, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1152
- Muhammad Usman vs Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi and 3 others 2022 YLR 1131
- MUHAMMAD SHAKIR Versus State 2021 PCrLJ 1346
- Doctor Manzoor Hussain Malik vs The State and another 2021 P Cr. L J 844, 2021 PLJ Lahore 347, 2021 LHC 30
- Muhammad Siddique & another vs Province of Punjab & others 2020 PCr. L J 197, 2020 PLJ Lahore 91, 2019 LHC 3358
- ISHTIAQ UR REHMAN vs SPECIAL JUDGE ANTI-TERRORISM COURT-I ISLAMABAD 2019 PLJ Islamabad 126, 2019 P Cr. L J 800
- SHEHRYAR WAQAS MALIK and another vs MUHAMMAD ZAFAR ALI KHAN and another 2018 CLD 1040
- Faisal Farooq & 3 others vs S.H.O & another 2016 LHC 1812
- HABIB BANK LTD. Versus CAPITAL CITY POLICE OFFICER 2015 PCrLJ 1609
- RASHID JAVED and anothers vs The STATE and 3 others 2015 P Cr. L J 1115
- TARIQ HAMEED and2 others vs ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE and 5 others 2013 P.C.T.LR. 788, 2013 CLD 2270
- Tariq Hameed, Etc. vs Addl. Sessions Judge, Etc. 2013 P.C.T.LR. 788
- TARIQ HAMEED Versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE 2015 MLD 1188
- MUHAMMAD WARIS ALI vs The STATE and others 2013 P Cr. L J 1500
- Mst. ADEELA BIBI and another vs STATE and 4 others 2012 PLJ Islamabad 140
- MAZHAR ABBASS vs STATE and another PLJ 2011 Cr.C. (Lahore) 926
- MURSHID ALI and 4 others vs S,H.O., POLICE STATION SADDAR, KHANEWAL and anothers 2011 CLD 1539
- MURSHID ALI and 4 others vs S.H.O., POLICE STATION SADDAR, KHANEWAL and another 2011 P Cr. L J 1763
- MAHMOOD AKHTAR KHAN vs THE STATE 2 others 2010 CLD 639
- MAHMOOD AKHTAR KHAN vs THE STATE and 2 others 2010 P Cr. L J 790
- Muhammad Usman vs Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi and 3 others 2022 PLJ Lahore 846