KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMADY, 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 (XLV1 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. Ln 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 an F.I.R then the Legislature would have said so specifically and that if the law a condition only on the taking of cognizance then it can never be read to imply prohibition on registration of FIRs.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at sorrie length, we find that the impugned order had not been legally and validly passed, ln 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.