' Messrs Musarrat Enterprises (Regd.) is a partnership firm registered with the Registrar of Firms, Karachi. Accused Jamil Ahmad Siddiqui (since convicted), and Mst. Musarrat Jamil are the partners of the said firm. The aforesaid firm inserted/got inserted advertisements in daily 'Jang'
Karachi, dated 13th, 15th and 19th January, 1988, inviting deposits of money from the public in contravention of section 27-A of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, and thus both the accused rendered themselves liable for the offence punishable under section 83(1-D) of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962. Accordingly a show-cause notice was issued to the said firm.
The reply received from them was, however, not found satisfactory and consequently a complaint for the said offence was filed before this Court, which was brought on regular file on 21-8-1988.
2. Charge under section 27-A, read with section 83(1-D) of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, was framed against Jamil Ahmad Siddiqui and Mst. Musarrat Jamil. Accused Jamil Ahmad Siddiqui pleaded guilty to the charge and was convicted vide judgment, dated 27-3-1989 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs,15,000 or in default to suffer S.I. For one month. Accused Mst. Musarrat Jamil, however, pleaded not guilty and the case proceeded against her.
3. The prosecution has examined Mr. Saeed Hyder Bhatti, Deputy Director (P.W.1), who has produced the relevant documents as (Exhs.6 to 13).
4. In her statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Accused Mst. Musarrat Jamil has disputed the case of the prosecution by disowning the partnership deed. She has examined Jamil Ahmad Siddiqui (D.W.1), and Muhammad Usman Baluch (D.W.2) in her defense.
5. Points for my determination are as follows:--
(i) Whether Messrs Musarrat Enterprises (Regd.) Karachi had inserted/got inserted advertisements in daily `fang' Karachi (Exhs. 8, 9 and 10) inviting deposits of money from public?
(ii) Whether the deposits of money were invited in contravention of the provisions of section 27-A of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962?
(iii) Whether accused Mst. Musarrat Jamil, being the partner of Messrs Musarrat Enterprises (Regd.) is liable to be punished under section 83(1-D) of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962?
6. My finding on the above points is in affirmative for the following reasons:--
7. Point No,1.
' Admittedly Messrs Musarrat Enterprises (Regd.), Karachi had made the advertisements in daily fang', Karachi, vide Exhs. 8, 9 and 10. Mr. Saeed Hyder Bhatti, Deputy Director, State Bank of Pakistan has produced the newspapers. Accused Jamil Ahmad Siddiqui had accepted this position and was convicted on his own plea of guilt. Accused Mst. Musarrat Jamil has disputed the advertisements, but the same are proved from the evidence of Mr. Saeed Hyder Bhatti (P.W.1) and the documentary evidence placed on record. Jamil Ahmad Siddiqui (D.W.1) who appeared as defence witness for his wife Mst. Musarrat Jamil also admits this position in his evidence.
8. A bare perusal of the advertisements (Exhs.8, 9 and 10) shows that by these advertisements deposit of money was invited from public. There is, therefore, no difficulty in answering this point in affirmative.
9. Point No,2.
' Section 27-A of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, as it stands now provides as follows:-- "Prohibition of advertisinz for deposits and collection.--- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no company, firm or person, not being a banking company or a corporation or authority established by the Federal Government or a company duly authorized in this behalf by the Controller of Capital Issues or the Corporate Law Authority or the Registrar Cooperative Societies, shall solicit or invite deposits of money from the public through advertisements in the public media or by postal circulars, handbills, displays in public places or by any other means, or collect or receive any deposits of money in pursuance thereof.
' Explanation.--- For the purposes of this section, 'deposits of money' shall be deemed to include money called, invited or collected for the purpose, or declared object, of investment or borrowing in any business carried on, or proposed to be carried on, by the company, firm or person by whom or on whose behalf, such money is called, invited, collected or received irrespective of the nature of the relationship, arrangement or terms offered or provided by such company, firm or person to the person making the investment, deposits of money or payment or of the basis or understanding on which the money is so called, invited, collected or received."
10. The insertion of advertisements by Messrs Musarrat Enterprises (Regd.), Karachi, stands proved.
This firm is neither a banking company nor a corporation or authority established by the Federal Government or a company duly authorised to invite deposits of money from the public through advertisements in the public media. There is, therefore, clear contravention of the provisions of section 27-A of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962. Messrs Musarrat Enterprises (Regd.), Karachi, was served with a show-cause notice (Exh.11). The explanation furnished by the firm (Exh.12) was, however, not found satisfactory. The deposits of money were solicited by the advertisements (Exhs.8, 9 and 10) and there was contravention of the provisions of section 27-A of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962. This point is also answered in affirmative.
11. Point No,3.
' Mr. Saeed Hyder Bhatti, Deputy Director, State Bank of Pakistan has produced the letter of Registrar of Firms, Karachi (Exh.7). According to this letter Messrs Musarrat Enterprises (Regd.), Karachi, has the following partners:--
(i) Jamil Ahmad Siddiqui son of Khalil Ahmad Siddiqui (accused No,2, since convicted).
(ii) Mst. Musarrat Jamil wife of Jamil Ahmad Siddiqui (present accused).
12. The fact that Mst. Musarrat Jamil is one of the partners of the said firm is, therefore, proved from the record. Accused Jamil Ahmad Siddiqui, since convicted, has tried to save his wife by appearing as defence witness No,1 and claiming to have signed on behalf of his wife. The record of the Registrar of Firms, however, shows that Mst. Musarrat Jamil is a partner of Messrs Musarrat Enterprises (Regd.), Karachi. No attempt was made by any of the two accused to disown this position before Registrar of Firms. The evidence of Muhammad Usman Baluch (D.W.1) who is the representative of the office of Registrar of Firms in no way improves the case of the present accused. There is no legal requirement for the appearance of all partners before the Registrar of Firms. The presumption of truth is attached to all official acts and record, unless contrary is proved.
13. Section 83(1-D) of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, makes every member of the firm liable for consequences in the following words:-- "If any company, firm or person contravenes the provisions of section 27-A, the Chief Executive of the company and its Directors, every partner of the firm and such person shall be guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine the amount of which shall not be less than twice the amount of deposits received in contravention of the said section and forfeiture of whole or part of the property of such company, firm or person and the Chief Executive of the company and its Directors, every partner of the firm and person."
14. Accused Mst. Musarrat Jamil, therefore, cannot escape from the punishment prescribed by law for every partner of the firm. Charge under section 27-A, read with section 83(1-D) of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, is, therefore, proved against her beyond any reasonable doubt.
15. The question of sentence has engaged my anxious consideration. Mst. Musarrat Jamil is a housewife. She was dragged in these proceedings due to the conduct of her husband who has already been punished and is presently in custody in some other cases. There is nothing on record to show that any deposit was received by the accused in response to the advertisements made by the firm. She, therefore, deserves maximum leniency. Accused Mst. Musarrat Jamil is, therefore, convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs,5,000 (Rs, Five thousand only) or in default to suffer S.I.
For 15 days. She is allowed one week's time to deposit fine in Nazarat of this Court.
Accused convicted.