1. ' Petitioners who are respectively Senior Director/Country Manager and Head of Credit Cards of American Express Bank Ltd. Have taken exception to the order, dated 14-1-2000 whereby learned Special Judge (Offences in Respect of Banks) Banking Court has referred the complainant under section 202, Cr.P.0 for enquiry by Officer of F.I.A./C.B.C., Lahore of a rank not less than D.S.P.
2. ' It is the case of the petitioners that in January, 1993 respondent No,3 entered into an agreement with American Express Bank Limited and executed certain documents whereafter US Dollar Gold Charge Card was issued to him. Some disputed arose between the parties whereupon respondent No,3 filed a Banking Suit No,302 of 1998 under section 9 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 which is pending adjudication before Banking Court No,3. The defendants in the Banking Suit controverted the stance and filed certain documents in support thereof whereafter leave to defend the suits was granted by learned Banking Court No,3.
3. ' Learned counsel has stated that in order to black mail, respondent No,3 filed a Criminal Complaint No,5 of 1999 before respondent No,1 Special Judge Offences (In Respect of Banks) under section 5(1) of the Banks Special Court Ordinance, 1984, making allegations of forging/fabricating the documents which were given in support of the claim of American Express Bank Limited. The details of these documents are given the complaint itself. On the receipt of the complaint the learned Special Judge has passed the impugned order referring the same for inquiry under section 202, Cr.P.C.
4. ' Learned counsel has argued that the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction as the American Express Bank Limited is not a Banking Company. Another argument has been advanced that the complaint is hit by section 195, Cr.P.0 as these very documents are under adjudication in the suit pending before Banking Court No,3 and unless and until a complaint in writing is made by a Banking Court, the proceedings of this nature cannot be commenced. In support of this contention learned counsel has placed reliance upon certain precedents.
5. ' I have considered the contentions and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. The complaint under dispute is at the very initial stage and the learned Special Judge has simply referred the matter for the inquiry qua veracity of the documents. The petitioners are well within his right to take question of jurisdiction before the learned Special Judge. As far as bar of section 195, Cr.P.C. Is concerned, the same is misconceived as a Full Bench of this Court in a case reported in Muhammad Shafi v D.S.P. (PLD 1992 Lah. 178) has dispelled this argument. The learned Bench while interpreting the applicability of section 195, Cr.P.C. Observed as under:--- "Now can it be said that the offence of forgery was against the administration of justice in a case in which the offence was committed, say, ten or twenty years before the suit in which the forged document was produced or given in evidence? The answer must obviously be in the negative. The forger must have, before the suit, used the forged documents on a number of occasions, in deceiving a number of persons. And when his fraud and forgery came to light and the real owner or the persons defrauded were preparing to take criminal proceeding, be hit upon the clever device of instituting a civil suit and producing the forged document in the civil suit. He would, then on the view contended for by the petitioner, be able to say; Well, I have produced the document in the Civil Court; you have to wait till that Court has finally decided the genuineness or otherwise of the document, for unless that is done, that Court will not be in a position to say whether an offence of forgery was committed or not and to lodge a complaint under section 195. Unfortunately, civil suits usually take very long to decide and, in practical terms, it may amount to completely defeating the ends of justice. On this view, therefore, the Civil Courts will become a place for the protection of criminals. This obviously could not have been the intention of the law. The cause of action for proceeding against the forger arose immediately when the offence of forgery as defined in section 463 of the P.P.C. Was committed. The commission of that offence was not only intended to deprive the real owner of his property but had also enable the forger to deceive others and to deprive them of money. No proceedings were pending in any Court at that time. There was, therefore, no question of the offence, at the date of its commission being against the Court or the administration of justice; nor did it, then, in any way sully the proceedings of the Court, for none were pending."
6. "As the two interpretations of clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 195 of the Cr.P.C. Are so evenly balanced, the one that does not deprive the ordinary Criminal Courts of their ordinary jurisdiction and persons of the right of redress must be adopted. On that view of the matter also, the view that clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 195 of the Cr.P.C. Does not apply to cases in which the forgery was committed before the institution of a suit or other proceedings in which the forged document is produced or given in evidence should, in my opinion, be preferred."
7. ' Resultantly for what has been stated above, I dispose of this writ petition with the direction to the petitioners to join the inquiry and place all their cards before the Inquiry Officer who in turn is directed not to harass the petitioner. Disposed of in the above terms. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.