STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN Versus CLASSIC INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD.
The charge against the accused is that they on or about 30‑1‑1988, 11‑2‑1988 and 5‑4‑1988, being the Directors of M/s. Classic International (Pvt.) Ltd., accused No.1, failed to produce the required statements and documents in relation to the business carried out by the said company for the purpose of determining whether the said company was doing any banking business in contravention of section 27(1) of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 43‑A, read with section 83(1‑C) of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962.
2. M/s. Classic International (Pvt.), Karachi, is a company registered, under the Companies Act, 1913, with accused Iftikhar Ghani Vohra, Mst. Surayya Jabeen, and Mst. Bushra Iftikhar as its Directors. As it appeared to State Bank of Pakistan that the accused were transacting business of banking in contravention of the provisions of section 27(l) of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, the State Bank of Pakistan, in exercise of powers under section 43‑A of the said Ordinance issued directives , dated 30‑1‑1988 and 11‑2‑1988 to accused No.1, calling upon it to produce the required statements and documents in relation to the business carried out by the said company for the purpose of determining whether the said company was doing illegal banking business, but with no result. In order to give one more chance a directive dated 5‑4‑1988 was published in daily `Business Recorder', Karachi, calling upon accused No.1 to produce within seven days all the books and records concerning its‑business for inspection by the State Bank of Pakistan, but no compliance was made. Consequently on 30‑1‑1989 a complaint against the accused was filed which was brought on record on 8‑2‑1989.
3. Charge under section 43‑A, read with section 83(l‑C) of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, was framed against the accused and he was asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. At the trial the prosecution examined Mr. S.M. Khursheed, Deputy Director (P.W.1), Syed lbrar Hussain, Inspecting Officer (P.W.2), and Muhammad Rafique, Inspecting Officer (P.W.3).
4. In their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C., the accused have denied the case of the prosecution. They have denied the receipt of directives by stating that the address of accused No.1 is, 43 Moosa Market, Shahrah‑e‑Liaquat, Karachi. The accused have not examined themselves on oath. They have, however, examined Abu Bakar Bhwani (D.W.I) in defence.
5. The points for my determination in this case are as follows:‑
(i) Whether the accused are Directors of M/s. Classic International (Pvt.) Ltd. a ,private limited company, having its office at M‑2, Jawad Court, Plot No.SC‑11, Chandni Chouk, Main University Road, Karachi, the accused No.I?
(ii) Whether the State Bank of Pakistan had reason to believe that accused No.1 were transacting illegal banking business in contravention of the provisions of section 27(1) of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962?
(iii) Whether the accused failed to produce/supply relevant record/information concerning the business of accused No.1 when called upon to do so by the State Bank of Pakistan?
6. My findings on the above points are as follows:‑
(i) As under.
(ii) As under.
(iii) Not proved.
REASONS .
7. POINTS NOSH. 2 and 3 .
Since the evidence on all the above points is common, hence for the sake of convenience they are being discussed together.
8. Mr. S.M. Khursheed, Deputy Director (P.W.1) has testified that the office of M/s. Classic International (Pvt.) Ltd:, Karachi, is. situated at Jawad Court, Karachi, the address given in complaint (Exh.2/6). It is also admitted by him that all the directives Exh.2/3, Exh.2/4 anti Exh.2/5) were sent to M/s. Classic International (Pvt.) Ltd. at the above address. The accused have denied this position by stating that they have got no office at M‑2, Jawad Court, Plot No.SC‑11, Chamlni Chouk, Main University Road, Karachi. They have produced certain letters of the State Bank of Pakistan through Mr: S.M. Khursheed (P.W.1), (Exh2/11, Exh2/12, Exh.2/13 and Exh.2/14), to prove that their registered office is situated at 43, Moosa Market Shahrah‑e‑Liaquat, Karachi, and the State Bank of Pakistan was in correspondence with them at this address. The. prosecution has failed to place on record any document to lend support to the case unfolded by the complainant in the complaint (Exh.2/6). In fact the documentary evidence available on record proves beyond and shadow of doubt that another company with distinct entity, viz., M/s. Pak Classic International (Pvt.) has its office at the address of accused No.1. The photograph (Exh.2/9) is clear on this point. The directive (Exh.2/10) shows the name of M/s. Pak. Classic International (Pvt.) Ltd., at the given address. In fact the other company, viz., M/s. Pak Classic International (Pvt.) Ltd. with the same address is also prosecuted by the State Bank of Pakistan vide complaint (Exh.10), which case is also being disposed of alongwith this case. Mr. Abu Bakar Bilwani (D.W.1) who is the Chartered Accountant, has made the entire position clear in the following words:‑
"I am working as Chartered Accountant at Karachi. M/s. Classic International (Pvt.) Ltd. was incorporated through us. The registered office of this company is 43‑Moosa Market, Shahrah‑e‑Liaquat, Karachi. lftikhar Ghani, Surayya Jabeen and Mrs. Bushra Iftikhar (Accused Nos.2 to 4) arc the directors of this company. After the institution of this case accused Iftikhar had contacted me seeking details about the registration of the company. We had gone to the office of Joint Registrar, where we learnt that no company with the above particulars was registered, but another company by name of Pak Classic International (Pvt.) Limited was registered, having its office at Jawad Court, Chandni Chowk, Karachi. I produce certified copy of the complaint in Criminal Case No.10 of 1989 against that company as Exh.10. The present directors arc not accused in that case."
9. All these factors when combined together establish that it was a case of mistaken identity and since the directives were not served upon accused No.1 at its correct address, the question of their non‑compliance does not arise. The contention of learned counsel for complainant that both M/s. Classic International (Pvt.) Ltd. and M/s. Pak Classic International (Pvt.) Ltd. are one and the same company, is devoid of any force. No such evidence was brought on record.
10. The circumstances mentioned above lead to the conclusion that the State Bank of Pakistan has filed the complaint without proper verification and has unnecessarily dragged the accused including two housewives in this case. The charge against the accused appears to be groundless and they arc accordingly acquitted. All the accused are on bail and they are discharged from their bail‑bonds.
N.H.Q./S‑865/K Accused acquitted.