' SYED SAEED-UD-DIN NASIR, J.--Since only one and similar question of law is involved in all these five petitions we intend to dispose of the same at the preliminary Katcha Peshi stage by a common order.
1. The petitioners have impugned the validity of impugned notices served upon them by the respondents Nos.2 and 3 under Section 73 of the Stamp Act, 1899, on the ground that the petitioners being a Banking Company registered under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 do not fall within the definition of a Public Office as contemplated by Section 73 of the Stamp Act, 1899.
2. Mr. Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing in Constitutional Petitions Nos.303/2011, 559/2011 and 747/2011 for the petitioners has inter alia contended that the respondent No,2 approved audit/inspection programme for the year 2010 and 2011 of the respondent No,3 under Section 73 of the Stamp Act, 1899 and the respondent No,3. In compliance of the order of respondent No,2, issued a letter to the petitioners for audit and inspection programme wherein the respondent No,3 called upon the petitioners that "You are under obligation to produce the record chargeable with stamp duty under the schedule to the Stamp Act". The respondent No,3 further stated in the said letter that under Section 73(2) of the Stamp Act, concealment of correct information attracts penalty, and in para 5 further stated that refusal of a Government Officer in charge of his public functions as aforesaid amounts to an obstruction under Section 186 of Pakistan Penal Code and punishable as such. The petitioner informed the respondent No,3 that the Banking Companies are not obliged to disclose its secrecy to any authorities without the due process of law as contemplated under Sections 25 and 33-A of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, Section 5 of the Banker's Books of Evidence Act, 1891, Section 46-B of State Bank of Pakistan (Amendment Act, 1997), Section 94 of Cr.P.C. And several other pari materia laws, which are applicable to the Banks/Financial Institutions operating in Pakistan including the officials of the petitioners banks who are not public officers. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on Section 73 of the Stamp Act, 1899, which for the sake of convenience is reproduced as under:-- "73. Books, etc., to be open to inspection. Every public officer having in his custody any registers, books, records, papers, documents or proceedings, the inspection whereof may tend to secure any duty, or to prove or lead to the discovery of any fraud or omission in relation to any duty, shall at all reasonable time permit any person authorized in writing by the Collector to inspect for such purpose to registers, books, papers, documents and proceedings, and to take such notes and extracts as he may deem necessary, without fee or charge."
3. The learned counsel next contended that the respondent No,2 can only impound documents that come before him in performance of his functions, but he cannot demand any document to be produced before him so that the same coula be impounded.
4. Mr. Ahmed Pirzada, learned counsel appearing for the respondents while contradicting the arguments extending by the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that under Section 22
(A) of the Stamp Act, Sindh Amendment "public office" includes a commercial or industrial concern, whether singly owned or run through partnership having more than twenty employees, a body registered under the Company Law for the time being in force or a co-operative society.
5. He further contends that the petitioners being a limited bank registered under the Companies, 1984 is a commercial concern having more than 20 employees and therefore, a public office company within the meaning contemplated by Section 22(A) Stamp Act by Sindh Amendment, whereby after Clause (22), Clause (22(A)) and (22(B)) have been inserted. He further contends that according to Section 22(B) a "public officer" includes an Officer-in-Charge of a public office. For the sake of convenience Section 22(A) and (B) of the Stamp Act, 1899 is reproduced as below:-- "SINDH AMENDMENT.
After clause (22), the following new clauses shall be inserted: "(22-A) 'a public office' includes a Government Office, Office of a Local Council a Local Authority, a statutory corporation or a similar body set up by the Federal or Provincial Government or a commercial or industrial concern, whether singly owned or run through partnership having more than twenty employees, a body registered under the Company Law for the time being in force or a cooperative societies; (22-B) 'public officer' includes an officer-in-charge of a public office."
6. Having given anxious consideration to the arguments extended by the learned counsel for the parties perusal of material available on record of the case and relevant provisions of law i.e, Section 73, Section 22(A) and 22(B) of the Stamp Act, 1899. We see that the arguments extended by Mr.Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui, the counsel for the petitioners are totally devoid of force. When he was confronted with the aforesaid provisions of law by the Court he faintly argued that still the petitioners cannot be forced to divulge secret documents of his clients to the respondents Nos.2 and 3, however, at the end he candidly admitted the legal position. There is no cavil to the fact that a Banking Company falls within the definition of a 'public office' by virtue of Section 22(A) of the Stamp Act and by virtue of section 22(B) of the Stamp Act, 1899 a 'public officer' includes an Officer-in-Charge of a public office for the purpose of Sindh Stamp Act. Therefore, we hold that the respondents Nos.2 and 3 are legally competent to issue the notices for inspection of the record chargeable with stamp duty under the Schedule to the Stamp Act, 1899, which have been impugned by way of these petitions.
' We, therefore, for the aforesaid reasons see no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and hold that the instant Constitutional Petitions are misconceived and are liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the petitions are dismissed in limine along with all listed applications for the reasons stated hereinabove, however, with no orders as to costs.