' This order will dispose of Writ Petition Nos. 866/90 to 878/90 and 801/90 involving common question on the basis of common facts. The petitioners in all the writ petitions being small agriculturists applied for agricultural loan to the Habib Bank at Badomali, District Sialkot. After some time the Bank officials of the concerned Branch of the Bank informed the petitioners that loan could not be sanctioned in their name. However, the relevant papers submitted by the petitioners for grant of loan were not returned to them and were detained on the pretext of official record of Bank. Subsequently Bank issued notices to the petitioners for deposit of the amount of loan obtained by them. It is stated that on one hand the petitioners were defrauded and on the other hand the Government money was misappropriated. The petitioners moved to the Bank Authorities and brought their grievance to their notice but no action was taken in the matter. The petitioners thereafter approached respondent No, 1 in this behalf but of no avail.
2. The comments submitted by SHO Police Station Badumali having not been found satisfactory, a report was called from FIA authorities which is available on the record. According to the report submitted by Deputy Director FIA the loan was advanced to the petitioners, who, except Attaullah and Abdul Hamid did not dispute their signatures on the relevant papers and have thus in this way accepted their liability and that the amount of loan has already been deposited and no actual loss was done to the Bank. He has submitted his report on the basis of inquiry conducted by Munir Ahmad Sub-Inspector FIA who is in favour of dropping further proceedings in the matter.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the amount of loan stated to have been deposited in the bank has not been deposited by the petitioners. Learned counsel for bank submits that whole amount of loan has been recovered and no actual loss was caused to the bank therefore, there is no need of further proceedings in the matter and prayed for dismissal of writ petition. He however, could not disclose the names of depositors.
' Admittedly the loan was advanced in the name of petitioners and they admitted their signatures on the relevant papers which cannot be otherwise denied for the simple reason that they applied for the loan themselves and submitted the documents under their signatures. Their case is that after completion of all formalities and preparation of documents the bank officials retained the documents with them but did not make payment of loan to the petitioners. The allegation of non- payment of loan after sanctioning it in their name is a matter which needs a detail probe particularly in view of the fact that the petitioners denied deposit of the amount of loan in the bank.
The question that if the amount was not deposited by the petitioners, then who, and under what circumstances deposited this amount in the bank and for what special reasons has not been answered by the learned counsel for the bank. This situation is serious enough to see that who was behind the curtain and in what manner this all was done to misappropriate the Government money. It appears that the loan was properly sanctioned in the name of the petitioners but the amount was utilized for the benefit of others who ultimately realizing the seriousness of matter became conscious and to avoid consequences deposited the amount of loan in the bank. Thus even if no actual loss was caused to the bank but the amount so withdrawn was illegally and unauthorisedly utilized for the benefit and use of persons other than the real beneficiary and this temporary embezzlement or misappropriation as the case may be of the amount in question, depriving the petitioners from their rights with no actual loss to the bank constitutes an offence.
S.P., Sialkot is directed to register a case against the culprits and entrust the investigation to some officer not below the rank of D.S.P.
5. The comments submitted by the S.H.O. are not based on correct facts. According to the comments the amount of loan was deposited by the petitioners whereas as per report of Deputy Director HA, it is not ascertainable that who deposited same which fact was also verified by the learned counsel for the bank. The S.P. is further directed to look into the conduct of the S.H.O. concerned with reference to the comments submitted by him supplying incorrect information with a view to mislead this Court for the interest of culprits. The police official by preparing wrong record to save the culprits from legal action apart from committing a criminal offence has also rendered himself liable for departmental action under the disciplinary rules which is required to be initiated against him by the competent authority under intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court.