' SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.---A complaint by Muhammad Aabid and Babar was sent on 3-11-2009 to the Additional Director FIA, Commercial Banking Centre, Karachi. The complainant stated that he had purchased a car on the basis of Bank Financing. His car was burnt in upheaval in the city of Karachi consequent to assassination of Shaheed, Muhtarma Benazir Bhutto. Consequently, he informed the Insurance Company as well as the concerned official of the Branch of Bank Al-Fatah.
Insurance Company settled claim for Rs,6,18,000 whereas the complainant contended that value of car was Rs,7,50,000. The bank officials told him that the car was insured for Rs,6,18,200 and even from the amount of Rs,6,18,000 the bank, though it validly deducted amount on 11 balance instalments, but amount paid to the complainant was short by Rs,80,322. Upon receipt of complaint an enquiry was initiated and ultimately on 8-4-2011 F.I.R. No,20 of 2011 was recorded at Police Station FIA, CBC Karachi. It was stated in the F.I.R. That consequent upon F.I.R. No,20 of 2011 it had been, prima facie, established that bank officers were responsible for acts of omission in that they sanctioned bogus auto loans. It was stated that Mr. Stanley Joseph and Murad Usmani of PECHS Branch and Safdar Mehdi and Shahid Pervaiz of Main Branch as also other employees were involved in giving loans to fake persons on the basis of forged and fake documents. Criminal Bail Application No,504 of 2011 has been filed by applicant Shahid Pervaiz who was Manager of Main Branch and Criminal Bail Application No,505 of 2011 has been filed by applicant Murad Usmani who was Manager PECHS Branch.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant in Criminal Bail Application No,504 of 2011 placed on record photocopy of approval of Car Finance to one Khalid Rasheed and submitted that it has been found that as consequence of enquiry Khalid Rasheed never applied for loan and this vehicle was never purchased by Khalid Rasheed. Learned counsel submitted that one Safdar Mehdi who was responsible for checking from NADRA Identity Card of Khalid Rasheed and relevant details processed the application for loan and the applicant merely relied upon such report of said Safdar Mehdi. Learned counsel submitted that there is delay of 6 years in lodging of F.I.R. And the delay has not been explained. Learned counsel next submitted that none of the offences are punishable with punishment of imprisonment for 40 years or more and, therefore, as a rule bail should be allowed. Learned counsel relied upon Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34).
3. Learned counsel explained that'process for grant of loan is that marketing staff checks authenticity and genuineness of customers and then presents proposal to Branch Committee of which applicant being Manager was Chairman. The Committee merely checks financial feasibility of proposal and approves it. Verification process was done by Safdar Mehdi and applicant had relied upon it. Said Safdar Mehdi has been dismissed by the Bank after due disciplinary proceedings and no action was taken by the Bank against the applicant. In fact the applicant was subsequently promoted as Area Manager. Learned counsel lastly submitted that statements of 8 prosecution witnesses have been recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. And none of the witnesses has implicated the applicant.
4. In the alternative, learned counsel submitted that in any case, the applicant is prepared to provide security for the alleged loss caused to Bank and in accordance with judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Shamraiz Khan v. The State (2000 SCM R 157) present applicant is entitled to bail. Mr. Khalid Mehmood Siddiqi learned counsel for applicant in Criminal Bail Application No,505 of 2011 adopted the arguments of Mr. Behzad Haider and submitted that applicant was Manager of PECHS Branch where verification process was carried on by Mr. Stanley Joseph. He submitted that no complaint has been made by the Bank and no loss has been caused to the Bank. Therefore, Banking Court did not have any jurisdiction.
5. Mr. Z.K. Mujahid learned counsel for complainant filed a statement and pointed out that loan was granted to Khalid Rasheed in respect of Vehicle with Registration No, AMC 068 which was stated to be a Toyota Corolla vehicle. On enquiry Registration record of vehicle revealed that Vehicle No, AMC 068 is a Honda Civic vehicle registered in the name of one Tariq Rasheed. He read from the statement of Khalid Rasheed recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel also referred to an order dated 26-11-2010 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Karachi South which is in the following words:-- "In the present case though F.I.R. Has not been lodged but since the inquiry aforesaid going on as such definitely the Investigation Officer is requiring the information and so also other related documents and to also examine witness if any. Therefore, the permission sought is hereby granted and the inquiry officer is permitted/allowed to collect required information and so also attested photo stat copies of the required documents and other necessary information from the banks aforesaid for the purposes of completing the process of inquiry in the matter."
6. He submitted that for 2 years the applicant impeded progress of enquiry and then only after above order was passed by the Court below cooperation started coming and major fraud has been unearthed. Learned counsel referred to challan submitted to the Court below on 23-4-2011 where in respect of Main Branch it is stated that 661 cases of Auto Loan granted are in default and an amount of Rs,202 million is still outstanding. In respect of Main Branch it is stated that 383 cases are in default and an amount of Rs,57 million is outstanding. He read from the challan that there are number of cases where on fake names, fake vehicles and fake registration numbers loans have been granted. Learned Court further submitted that at both the PECHS and the Main Branch one account each was being used for paying instalments in respect of hundreds of loan advances and the applicants being Managers of branch could not have been oblivious of going one. Mr. Ashfaq Ahmed Taggar learned D.P.-G. Supported the contention of Mr. Z.K. Mujahid learned counsel for complainant.
7. We have considered submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record as well as case-law cited at the bar.
8. It is case where it is alleged that serious fraud has been committed in granting of auto loans to a number of fake persons. Such kind of crimes are called vide "White-collar Crimes". They are totally different in nature from common crimes that take place in the society. In common crimes for example a couple of persons come, duly armed, give a proverbial hakkal or lalkara, firing takes place and few persons are murdered. Things remain obvious from the word go and processes followed for covering the tacks are know, and well-settled. In case of White-collar crimes the primary instrument for commission for crime is creation of false documents. Documentary trial is created and if ever discovered for a long period crime remains hidden and many times culprits operate in a manner that famous Urdu poet Mustafa Zaidi called, wearing gloves on their hands no fingerprints are left and it is difficult to trace them.
9. In the present case what is alleged is (and we do not know Whether allegations are true or not because this can only be decided by the trial Court after recording evidence), that registration number of vehicle were picked up and thereafter forged documents were created and loans were given to fake persons. In each branch, an account was opened in the name of the family members of an employee of the branch and installments in respect of loans were regularly deposited in respect of hundreds of loan applications through one single account. This crime remained hidden for a long time till the complainant blew the whistle. Therefore, contention of learned counsel that though loans are said to have been given during the period starting from 2005, F.I.R. Was registered in 2011 and the delay has remained unexplained is without any substance.
10. Main thrust of the contentions of learned counsel in both the cases was that it was the gentlemen incharge of getting NADRA verification (Safdar Mehdi and Stanley Joseph) who provided wrong information and the applicants being Branch Manager merely acted on the basis of information provided to them. A perusal of the challan indicates that it is not the happening in one case in each of the branch. There have been dozen of cases in each of the branches. 11 such cases have been specifically stated in the challan in respect of the Main Branch only. The fact that loans were granted to fake persons on fake documents in respect of fake vehicles (in each cases registration number of the vehicles stated on documents was not in respect of vehicle of the same make or model for which loan was granted; for example: AMC 068 for which loan was granted was stated to be Toyota Corolla in the name of Khalid Rasheed; AMC 068 actually was Honda Civic registered in the name of Tariq Rasheed. ALV 021 was stated to be a Suzuki in the name of S. Fahad Ahmed Rizwan but actually ALV 021 was registered in the name of Muhammad Sabir) is partly clear.
In the challan's details for as many as 60 such vehicles have been provided. The statement of P.W.
Raja Abdul Rahim has been recorded and he states that these documents reveal that he had obtained 4 loans for vehicles whereas actually he had not obtained any such loan. All this material, prima facie, reasonably B connects the applicants to the alleged offence,
11. Statement by the learned counsel that applicants were prepared to provide security for sum of alleged loss caused to the Bank in respect of one transaction which is mentioned in the F.I.R. And, therefore, they are entitled to bail in terms of judgment of passed in Shamraiz Khan's case (supra) cannot help their case. After the was registered and inquiry commenced, as stated in the challan.
Defaults in hundreds of cases amounting to more than to Rs,202 -million in PECHS Brant it and - Rs,57 million in Main Branch have been unearthed. It is, therefore, not available to the applicants to take benefit of Shamraiz Khan's case in respect of only one loan which is mentioned in the F.I.R.
Because Court has now taken cognizable of the entire offences. Had it been a case of a single transaction, the applicants could have been entitled to the benefit of Shamraiz Khan's as well as Tariq Bashir's case (supra); it is a case where it is alleged that there dozens and hundreds of such transactions. Investigating Officer present in Court showed us Account Statement of one account each branch being operated in the names of wife/relatives of employee in branch which account was being used for servicing of hundreds of such loan applications.
12. Learned counsel for applicants vehemently argued that no disciplinary action has been taken againstapplicants by the Bank whereas said Safdar Mehdi and Stanley Joseph have been dismissed after disciplinary proceedings and present applicants in fact have been promoted.
Firstly, it is established law that domestic disciplinary action and criminal action are independent of each other and result of one could have no bearing whatsoever on result of the other. If any authority is needed one may refer to Inspector General of Police Punjab, Lahore and others v.
Muhammad Tariq (2000 PLC 725), Executive, Engineer and C others v. Zahid Shareef (2005 PLC [C.Sl 701), Government of N.-W.F.P. And 2 others v. Auranzeb (2003 PLC [C.S.] 167), Arif Ghafoor v.
Managing Director, Heavy Mechanical Lomplex Taxla and others (PLD 2002 SC 13).
13. Result of the above discussion is that these bail applications are dismissed.
14. Needless to observe that the trial Court while deciding guilt or innocence of the persons standing trial before it shall not be influenced, in any manner whatsoever, by any of the observations, made above.