Pakistan Case Law
2006 SCMR 483

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN and others vs Mian ASIM

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2006 SCMR 483
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No,356-L of 2005
Date2005-12-15
Judge(s)Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Ch. Ijaz Ahmad
Authored byKhalil-Ur-Rehman Ramday
ResultAppeal allowed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

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.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • 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.?
Laws & provisions referred
  • 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
F.I.R. registrationcognizance of offenceBanking CourtFinancial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinancequashing of F.I.R.criminal procedure

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

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.