MUHAMMAD MOINUDDIN vs PRESIDING OFFICER, SPECIAL COURT (OFFENCES
This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Special Court (Offences in Banks), which determined that the offence charged against the petitioner constituted a scheduled offence under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, and was thus triable by that court. The petitioner contended that the alleged acts did not fall within the definition of a scheduled offence because the petitioner did not commit an offence directly against the bank, and further argued that the evidentiary value of the documents relied upon was insufficient under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The court examined whether the alleged manipulation of a bank-issued Pay Order brought the matter within the jurisdiction of the Special Court. The High Court held that the tampering with an official bank document, even if not a direct offence against the bank itself, constituted a scheduled offence. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, affirming the Special Court's jurisdiction. The judgment establishes that manipulation of official bank instruments falls within the ambit of scheduled offences triable by Special Courts under the 1984 Ordinance.
- Does the manipulation of a bank-issued Pay Order constitute a scheduled offence under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984?
- Is a Special Court (Offences in Banks) empowered to try an offence involving the manipulation of bank documents even if the offence was not committed directly against the bank?
- Can a constitutional petition be maintained against an order of a Special Court determining its own jurisdiction over a scheduled offence?
- Sections 3 and 4, Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984
- Article 75, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984
- Article 76, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984
ORDER
1. SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, J.---Through this Constitutional Petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 7-10-2009 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)
2. 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.
3. 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 his 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.
4. 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.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned DAG and perused the entire material available on record.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Forgoing are the reasons for our short order dated 24-3-2011, whereby we had dismissed this petition.
Cited by 3 cases
- Syed Mushahid Shah, etc. vs Federal Investment Agency, etc. 2017 P.S.C. (Crl.) 301
- Syed MUSHAHID SHAH Versus FEDERAL INVESTMENT AGENCY 2017 SCMR 1218
- Syed MUSHAHID SHAH and others vs FEDERAL INVESTMENT AGENCY and others 2017 SC MR 1218