FAIZ AHMED vs THE STATE and 4 others
This matter arises from constitutional petitions filed by Faiz Ahmed seeking to set aside orders declaring him a proclaimed offender, issuing non-bailable warrants of arrest, and holding him in custody, in connection with an FIR involving fake sales tax refund payment orders (RPOs) and bank cheques. The core legal question is whether the petitioner's act of merely acting as an introducer for his son's bank account opening constitutes a punishable offence under the law. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner had no involvement in the issuance, negotiation, or receipt of the fraudulent sales tax refunds, and his mere act of introducing his son at the time of opening a personal bank account does not amount to a criminal offence. The court laid down the principle that without concrete incriminating evidence connecting an accused to the commission of the crime, criminal proceedings, warrants, and declarations as a proclaimed offender against them are illegal and without lawful authority. Accordingly, the petitions were allowed and the impugned orders were set aside.
- Does acting as an introducer for a bank account opening constitute a criminal offence when the account holder is implicated in fraud?
- Can a person be declared a proclaimed offender and subjected to non-bailable warrants without sufficient incriminating evidence?
- Are criminal proceedings sustainable against an individual where the prosecution fails to collect evidence connecting them to the alleged crime?
- Section 16-A(a), National Accountability Ordinance 1999
' SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.--- This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petition No,1584 of 2007 and Writ Petition No,1585 of ' 2007 as common question of law and facts are involved.
2. Precisely, the facts are that on 6-12-2004 F.I.R. No,4 of 2004 was registered against Zahid Rashid, etc. Tahir Mahmood, an accused in the above case disclosed issuance of 12 cheques to Messrs Faiq Textiles Lahore against 12 equal fake sale tax refund payment orders. (RPOs) for the year 2001.
Tahir Mahmood conceded preparation of cheque on the direction of his Incharge/Chief Accounts Officer, who Was in collusion with Ch. Asif Ali Faiz son of the petitioner herein. Mr. Ahmad Kamal, Deputy Director of Sales Tax Collectorate, submitted interim challan in the Court of learned Special Judge, Customs, Taxation and Anti-Smuggling Punjab, Lahore against the petitioner and four others. In terms of section, 16-A(a), N.A.O., 1999, the case was transferred from the Court of learned Special Judge, Customs, Taxation and Anti-Smuggling to the learned Judge Accountability Court No,3, Lahore. The petitioner sought indulgence of this Court to declare; the order treating as Proclaimed Offender, issuing non-bailable warrants of arrest in consequence thereto and direction to Superintendent Adiala Jail, Rawalpindi not to release him, are illegal and without lawful authority.
3. Notice was issued to the respondent to obtain instructions from the concerned quarter. Learned Special Prosecutor appeared in Court after obtaining instructions.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even if accusation as made is admitted, no offence is made out.
5. On the other hand, learned Special Prosecutor for NAB argued that only evidence available against the petitioner is introduction of his son Ch. Asif Ali Faiz by signing form for opening personal account.
6. We have heard the learned counsel and perused the record.
7. The only material available on record against the petitioner is in the form of his signatures as introducer on opening of personal account by his son, co-accused with the Bank. Faiq Textile, Lahore is a firm, which is beneficiary of sales tax refund payment order. The petitioner has no hand in opening of account by his son in the name of Firm. He is neither party to release of refund nor has any hand in negotiation by his son, co-accused, in the matter of business of Firm. Introduction of his son co-accused on opening of personal account with Bank is no offence in the eyes of law.
Respondents have failed to collect evidence worth the name against the petitioner.
8. For what has been discussed above, we are of the confirmed view that the petitioner by simply introducing his son at the time of opening of his personal account with the Bank had not committed any offence punishable in the eyes of law. These constitutional petitions are allowed, impugned orders are set aside, issuance of warrants of arrest and declaration of petitioner as Proclaimed Offender is without lawful authority and, thus, are set aside.