STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN Versus UNI PACKS (PVT.) LTD.
The charge against the accused is that they not being a banking company or a corporation or authority established by the Federal Government or a company duly authorised in this behalf by the Controller of Capital Issues and Corporate Law Authority or the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, invited deposits of money from the public through advertisements, in violation of section 27‑A, and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 83(1‑D) of the. Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962.
2. M/s. Uni Packs (Pvt.) Ltd., the accused No.1 is a company registered under, the Companies Ordinance, 1984 with absconding accused Khalil Mohsin, Mst. Aziz Begum, Aijaz Ahmad Shaikh and Rao Nader Ali Khan and present accused Mst. Fatma Sultana, Abdul Rahim Siddiqui, and Ghayas Mirza as its Directors. The accused No.1 inserted/got inserted advertisements in daily `Jung', Karachi, dated 13th, 14th and 15th January, 1988, inviting deposits of money from the public in contravention of the provisions of section 27‑A of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962. They were served with a notice to show cause as to why they, may not be prosecuted, but with; no reply. Consequently on 11‑7‑1988 the complaint for the said offence .was filed t before this Court, which, .was brought: on record on 14‑7‑1988. Out of the above accused only accused Mst. Fatima Sultana, Abdul Rahim Siddiqui and Ghayas Mirza were served, while the rest absconded. Proclamation under section 87, Cr.P.C. was issued against them and then an order under section 512, Cr.P.C. was passed. It was thereafter that the case has proceeded. against the present accused.
3. Charge under section 27‑A, read with section 83 (1‑D) of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, was framed ‑against accused ‑Mst. Fatma Sultana, Abdul Rahim Siddiqui and Ghayas Mirza and they were asked whether they plead guilty or have any defence to make. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. At the trial the prosecution examined Muhammad Rafique, Banking Officer (P.W.1) and Jameel Ahmed (P.W.2).
4. In their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C., the present accused have denied the case of the prosecution. They have examined themselves on oath. The defence of accused Ghayas Mirza in brief is that his signatures were obtained by absconding accused Khalil Mohsin on memorandum and articles of association through fraud. Accused Mst.' Fatma Sultana is wife of absconding accused Khalil Mohsin and a sister of co‑accused Abdul Rahim Siddiqui. According to them the absconding accused Khalil Mohsin was responsible for involving them. in this case. They were, however, retired from directorship. with effect from 9‑1‑1988 vi&(Exh.15).
5. The points for .my determination are as follows:‑
(i) Whether the accused inserted advertisements in daily `Jung', Karachi, dated 13‑1‑1988, 14‑1‑1988 .and 15‑1‑1988 (Exh.6/B, Exh.6/C and Exh.6/D)?
(ii) Whether the accused. invited deposits of money from public through (Exh.6/B,.Exh.6/C and Exh.6/D) in contravention of the provisions of section 27‑A of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962?
(iii) What offence, if any, is committed by accused or any one of them?
6. My findings on the above points are as follows:‑
(i) As under.
(ii) As under.
(iii) Accused Ghayas Mirza has committed the offence under section 83(1 D): of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962.
REASONS .
7. POINTS NOS. 1 2 and 3 .
All these points are interconnected, hence for the sake of convenience they are being discussed together.
8. Muhammad Rafique, Banking Officer (P.W.1) has produced the letter of Joint Registrar (Exh‑6/E), by which it was disclosed that all the present accused and absconding accused are the directors of accused No.1. He. hasp also produced the newspapers in original (Exh.6/B, Exh.6/C and Exh.6/D), through which accused No.1 had solicited deposits of money‑ from. public Accused Ghayas Mirza has denied his above status although admitted his signatures on memorandum and articles of association. He has: alleged fraud against absconding accused Khalil Mohsin by pleading that his signatures were obtained by him fraudulently. Both accused Mst. Fatma Sultana and Abdul Rahim Siddiqui have also denied their above status. According to them they were involved in this case due to absconding accused Khalil Mohsin who is husband of accused Mst. Fatma Sultana: It is, however, their case that they were retired from directorship vide (Exh.15)‑ with effect from 9‑1‑1988: It is, however, proved from the record that accused No.1 inserted/got inserted the above advertisements thereby inviting deposits of money from public. Besides the evidence of Muhammad Rafique, Banking Officer (P.W.1), there is evidence of Jameel Ahmed (P.W.2), Senior Assistant of daily `Jung', Karachi, who has produced the relevant record in this behalf.
9. The case of accused Mst. Fatma Sultana and Abdul Rahim Siddiqui is on different footing from that of accused Ghayas Mirza. He has simply denied his status of Director but the same is proved from: the record. The letter of Joint Registrar (Exh.6/E) makes it clear that accused Ghayas Mirza was one of the directors of accused No. 1. The cross‑examination made to this accused is self‑explanatory and for the sake of convenience is reproduced below:‑
"It was not to my knowledge that 1 signed it as one of the Directors. In fact I came to know about it when I received summons from this Court. I took no steps to get my name deleted from the memorandum and articles of association after the institution of this case."
10. Section 83(1‑D) of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962; provides that if any company, firm or person contravenes the provisions of section 27‑A, the Chief Executive of the company and its directors, every member of the firm and such person shall be punishable with S.I. for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one hundred thousand rupees, or with both. Accused Ghayas Mirza is thus liable for the contravention committed by accused No.1. He is accordingly convicted under section 83(1‑D)if of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1 Five thousand or in default to suffer S.I. for one month. He is allowed one month's time to deposit the fine in the Nazarat of this Court.
11. Accused Mst. Fatma Sultana and Abdul Rahim Siddiqui had, however, retired with effect from 9‑1‑1988. The letter (Exh.15) is clear on this point. Saghir Ahmad Hashmi (D.W.4) who is working as Company Inspector in Corporate Law Authority has produced the relevant letter. The annexure of (Exh.6/E) also confirms this fact although the date of resignation of these two accused is shown as 15‑1‑1988. At any rate there are reasonable grounds to believe that both accused Mst. Fatma Sultana and Abdul Rahim Siddiqui were not directors of accused No.1, when the advertisements (Exh.6/B, Exh.6/C and Exh.6/D) were made. They have, therefore, not violated the provisions o section 27‑A of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962. Accordingly both these accused are acquitted. They are on bail and are discharged from their bail‑bonds. The case against the absconders may be kept on dormant file.
N.H.Q./S‑866/K Order accordingly.