1. ' Petitioner a Metropolitan Police Officer of U.K. Through this application filed under section 6 of the Banker's Book Evidence Act, 1891 (hereinafter referred to as an Act) has prayed that the respondent Bank be directed to provide certified copies of all transactions in three accounts maintained by Syed Zargham Rizvi, who is facing trial before Crown Court London for misappropriation of huge amount.
2. ' It is the case of the petitioner that he has been entrusted with the collection of evidence relating to the legal proceedings against Syed Zargham Rizvi, before Crown Court London. The matter was earlier investigated by Director Investigation of Metropolitan Police London and it came to light that while working in different capacities at Saint Giles Hotel Bedford, said Zargham Rizvi misappropriated huge amount over a period of 9 years. It has also come on record during the course of investigation that the misappropriated amount was deposited in respondent Bank.
3. Learned counsel has further pointed out that similar request was made for the provision of aforementioned documents by Crown Prosecutor Head of London Division to the Director-General F.I.A. On 23-11-1999 vide Letter No,7796-8000 pointing out 14 incidents of stealing of amount by the miscreant. (Letter is appended with this petition). He has prayed that this Court under section 6 of the Bankers' Book Evidence Act, 1891, is empowered to issue such direction for the issuance of certified copies. He has also made reference to Extradition Act, 1972, wherein on the basis of treaty between the U.K. And Pakistan, a person even can be extradited from Pakistan if he is involved in misappropriation of funds. On this basis he has stated that had Zargham Rizvi been in Pakistan he would certainly have been extradited but in this case a simple direction for the provision of certain documents of Rizvi's account from respondent Bank is sought. Last but not the least he has stated that large number of cases are being probed into by National Accountability Bureau (NAB) of Pakistanis who have similarly deposited huge amount in foreign Banks. The NAB Investigating Authorities in Pakistan would also require such a treatment from the foreign Banks.
4. ' Khawaj a Saeed-uz-Zafar, learned Deputy Attorney-General has candidly supported the interpretation put by learned counsel for the petitioner on section 6 of the Bankers' Book Evidence Act. He has stated that this Court has got ample power to issue such-like direction without there being any proceedings pending.
5. ' I have considered the contentions and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. Section 6 of the Bankers' Book Evidence Act provides as under:--- "On the application of any party to a legal proceeding the Court or a Judge may order that such party be at liberty to inspect and take copies of any entries in a banker's book for any of the purpose of such proceedings, or may order the bank to prepare and produce, within a time to be specified in the order, certified copies of all such entries are to be found in the books of the Bank relevant to the matters in issue in such proceedings, and such further certificate shall be dated and subscribed in manner hereinbefore directed in reference to certified copies. "
6. ' The "Court" as well as "Judge" has been defined in section 2(5)2(6) of the Act, respectively in the following terms:---
(5) ' The Court' means the person or the person before whom a legal proceeding is held or taken:
(6) 'Judge' means a Judge of a High Court.''
7. The reading of aforesaid section in conjunction with the definition clause demonstrates that a Court can only give such direction if any legal proceedings are pending before it. However, regarding a Judge of a High Court as rightly stated by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Attorney-General no such restriction regarding the pendency of legal proceedings is placed. The word "or" mentioned in section 6 of the Act is of disjunctive in nature and condition of pendency of legal proceedings is only applicable in the case of a Court. This condition/ requirement of pendency of legal proceedings cannot be made applicable to a Judge of High Court in the presence of the word "or" in section 6 of the Act. The power of the High Court Judge under the Act has not been conditioned. On the other hand, this provision enables the Judge of a High Court to issue such-like direction even if no proceedings are pending. It is the consistent policy of the superior Courts that unless power of Courts are specifically excluded, it shall retain jurisdiction and power to make such direction for the advancement of justice). Reference in this regard is made to (1998 M LD 225), where it was held as under:--- "Any step which advances justice can always be adopted and in the absence of specific powers and procedure, inherent powers can always be invoked. Reference may be made to the judgment in Imtiaz Ahmad v. Ghulam Ali (PLD 1963 SC 382), wherein following observation was made which has consistently been followed: '....The proper place of procedure in any system of administration of justice is to help and not to thwart the grant to the people of their rights. All technicalities have to be avoided unless it be essential to comply with them on grounds of public policy...System which by giving effect to the form and not the substance defeats substantive rights (and) is defective to the extent."
8. Express words or clear intendment or necessary implication are required to take away the jurisdiction of superior Courts. The Superior Courts not only jealously guard their jurisdiction but are always on the look out to extend the same to advance the cause of justice. The legal technicalities would not come into the way so as to hamper the cause of justice. Reliance in this respect is placed upon (PLD 1996 Lah.528) as under:--- "That while taking decision as to whether a particular Court has jurisdiction to decide a cause, the principle of forum-non- convenience' and ends of justice have also to be kept in view;"
9. ' Reference is also made to (1975 SC 678), where it was held as under:- "The proposition could hardly be disputed that the principal object behind all legal formalities is to safeguard the paramount interest of justice. In fact while considering the importance of legal technicalities and rule of procedure in the administration of justice, it is inevitable to recall the various evolutionary stages in the transition from justice without law of primitive society to justice in accordance with law of modern society and the conflict between equity and law in judicial history.
10. It cannot be denied that legal precepts were devised with a view to impart certainty, consistency and uniformity to administration of justice and to secure it against arbitration of justice and to secure it against arbitrariness, errors of individual judgment and mala fide."
11. ' The learned Judges in this case has further observed as under:--- "In Giovanni Di Santo v. Commonwealth of Pennskylyania (3) it Twas observed that the logic of words should yield to the logic of realities, particularly while dealing with adjustment of conflicting authorities.
12. ' The salutary principle of interpretation which also points to the same direction appears to have been derived from the observation of Bowen, L.J. In Curtis v. Stovin (4) which reads as follows:--- 'If it is possible, the words of a statute must be construed so as to give a sensible meaning to them.
13. The words ought to be construed UT res magis valeat quam pareat.'
14. It is settled principal of law that whatever is not prohibited specifically, it is permitted provided the same does not violate any express provision of law. At the cost of repetition, I must say that section 6 of the Act has given ample power to Judge of a High Court to issue direction in the nature prayed for. The restriction if any qua the pendency of the proceedings is specifically applicable in the case of a Court which has separately been defined in section 2(5) of the Act. Resultantly for what has been stated above, the C.M. Is accepted and the respondent Bank is directed to issue certified copies as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs.
15. ' C.M. Accepted.