KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J.---This judgment will dispose of I.C.A. No,1054 of 1997 and Writ Petitions Nos.9790 of 1999, 29377 of 1997, 13798 of 2000, 6658 of 2002, as common question of law, viz., jurisdiction of Federal Investigation Agency to register cases in relations to offences committed in private banks, is involved. It would be profitable to summarize the facts of each case.
2. In Intra-Court Appeal No,1054 of 1997, M/s. Mohib Textile Mills Limited, its Chief Executive and Directors/Petitioners, obtained credit facility of rupees 111.3 millions from respondent No,3 (Saciete Generale, the French and International Bank), against pledge of 7225 cotton bales lying at company's premises at Muzaffargarh. On 29-8-1996, Corporate Head of respondent-Bank lodged a complaint with F.I.A./Director-General, Headquarter, F.I.A., Islamabad, alleging that the Muqaddams appointed by the respondent-Bank, intimated on 15-8-1996 that since 14-8-1996, they have been forcibly and illegally evicted from the Mills premises and despite their repeated requests, the Directors and Factory Manager denied their access to the pledged stock. The complainant further stated that they have thus embezzled and removed 7225 pledged cotton bales. This complaint culminated into F.I.R. No,35 of 1996 dated 1-9-1996 registered under sections 382 and 406, P.P.C.
Against the appellants. The appellants challenged the registration of said F.I.R. Through writ petition mainly on the point of jurisdiction as also on the ground that the said pledged stocks were sealed by the Bailiff on 14-8-1996 in the process of implementation of ex parte decree obtained by another creditor, M/s. American Express Bank. The learned Single Bench dismissed the writ petition. Hence this I.C.A. For setting aside the judgment of Single Bench.
3. In Writ Petition No,9790 of 1999, A Pakistani (Fail-ul-Hasssan Mazhar), complainant, resident of America, opened an account with ABN Amro Bank NV Gulberg, Lahore on 24-3-1999. On 4-5-1999 petitioner No,4 an Account Officer of Bank informed him on phone at 10-10 a.m. That his account has been debited for Rs,2.8 million, on a cheque presented for clearance from Emirates Bank International, Main Boulevard, Gulberg, Lahore in favour of one Ms. Shazia Akbar d/o Mr. Malik Muhammad Akbar, resident of 94-C-Satellite Town, Gujranwala. He immediately responded that the cheque should not be honoured as he has not issued any cheque. At 10-35 a.m. The said officer of Bank/petitioner No,4 again contacted him and informed that he should go to Emirates Bank as the amount has been disbursed/handed over to said Bank. When the complainant visited the Emirates Bank it was found that the said lady has withdrawn the total amount just a while ago.
Then he went to ABN Amro Bank and filed a complaint about the said fraud. Later on the complainant also perused the account opening papers of said lady and found that certain columns of the form were blank and even the column of "reference" was not filled in. He also visited the house of said lady and came to know that about one year prior to said occurrence, a robbery took in her house wherein her I.D. Card was also stolen. The fraud took place on Cheque No,00289971. The complainant further stated that he has not used Cheque No,00289968 to 70 as such he could check if any cheque is missing. Ultimately complainant filed a complaint with the Director/Economics Crime Wing, F.I.A., Islamabad, and later on F.I.R. No,48 of 1999 dated 25-51999 under sections 420, 468, 471, 109, P.P.C. And section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was registered at Police Station F.I.A. S.B.C., Lahore, against the Bank. The petitioners are the officers of the Bank and seek quashment of F.I.R.
4. In Writ Petition No,29377 of 1997, the petitioner was appointed Grade II Officer in Soneri Bank Ltd.
On 8-4-1992 he was assigned the Import Desk in the Bank. He relinquished the charge of the said seat in May, 1996 and handed over the charge to one Mujib Tariq. On 10-1-1997 the respondent Bank/Soneri Bank Limited preferred a complaint before the Special Court (Offences in Banks), Lahore, alleging misappropriation of money by the petitioner during his tenure on "Import Desk".
The Special Court vide order dated 3-4-1997 Annexure-B/page 14, directed the F.I.A. To conduct investigation into the allegations mentioned in the complaint. Resultantly F.I.R. No,31 of 1997 was registered against the petitioner/employee of respondent-Bank and after investigation challan has been submitted to the Court. The complainant/respondent-Bank withdrew the private complaint that has been disposed of as withdrawn by the Special Judge vide order 21-11-1997. On the other hand the prosecution has sought sanction to prosecute the accused in the case which at that time was still awaited. Petitioner seeks quashment of the F.I.R.
5. In Writ Petition No,13798 of 2000, the petitioner as the Chief Executive of M/s. Sunpak Fibres Ltd.
Obtained credit facility from Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. Bank Square Branch, Gujranwala, against the pledge of all assets of the company. The company defaulted in repayment of loan.
Consequently respondent-Bank filed a recovery suit for a sum of US $19,60,000 plus Pak Rs,6,91,69,120 plus Rs,21,28,00,000. The suit was decreed by Mr. Justice Malik Muhammad Qayyum on 25-9-1998. Later on, on filing execution petition M/s. NESPAK Engineers was appointed to unpack and evaluate the machinery for the purpose of sale through auction. M/s. NESPAK inspected the property of the company at Hattar, District Haripur, and found certain machinery missing value of which comes to US $7,44,999 or Pak Rs,3,86,14,000. Resultantly, on 1-5-2000, the Manager of respondent-Bank lodged a complaint with the Director F.I.A., Lahore regarding the said misappropriation and embezzlement, which later on culminated into registration of F.I.R. No,44 of 2000 dated 5-6-2000 under sections 420 and 406, P.P.C.
6. In Writ Petition No,6658 of 2002, the petitioner is the Chief Executive of Ahmad Chemical (Pvt.)
Limited. The company obtained credit facility of Rs,60 million from Allied Bank of Pakistan, secured against certain securities (company's assets, personal guarantee of all directors, mortgage of properties aggregate value of Rs,30,147 million and pledge of palm oil. Subsequently the credit facility enhanced to Rs,75 million against the pledge of goods to be stored at Karachi Terminal under effective control of banks approved clearing agent of repute. Certain letters of credits/bills amounting to Rs,7,75,34,501 were dishonoured. Moreover, the Directors of the Company removed pledged palm oil 3455.579 metric tons. The upshot of the complaint is that the petitioner and other Directors of the company wrongly gained and caused loss to respondent-Bank for Rs,116.523 million in such a way. Respondent-Bank filed a complaint before the Special Judge (Offences in Banks), Lahore on 3-1-2001. Learned Special Judge, vide order dated 19-1-2001, directed the F.I.A., E.C.W.
Islamabad to register a case and investigate the same. Consequently F.I.R. No,29 of 2001 was registered on 27-3-2001 at Police Station F.I.A., S.B.C., Lahore under sections 420, 468, 471, 406, 409, 109, P.P.C. Read with 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, against the Chief Executive, Directors of the Company and some employees of Customs Department.
7. Federal Investigation Agency was created under section 3 of the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 (Act VIII of 1975), promulgated in Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary, Part I, dated 17-1-1975, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Preamble says "whereas it is expedient to provide for the constitution of a Federal Investigation Agency for the investigation of certain offences committed in connection with matters concerning the Federal Government, and or matters connected therewith". Under section 3 of the Act, Federal Government has been empowered to constitute an Agency to be called the Federal Investigation Agency "for inquiry into, and investigation of, the offences specified in the Schedule, including an attempt or conspiracy to commit, and abetment of, any such offence". The Agency is to consist of Director-General and such number of other officers as the Federal Government may, from time to time, appoint. Under section 4, superintendence of the Agency vests in the Federal Government while its administration vests in the Director-General. Section 5 enumerates the powers of the members of the Agency. Section 9 empowers the Federal Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Section 10 repeals the Pakistan Special Police Establishment Ordinance, 1948 and Provincial Police (Amalgamation) Order, 1962. In the original Act the Schedule of the offences consisted of 16 items.
Item No,1 is important for the purposes of these cases and this enumerates the offences covered by various sections of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time (registration of cases), the offences were covered by Item No,1 of the Schedule.
8. The divergence of views has arisen primarily on account of the expression used in the Preamble.
The learned Judges in Javed Iqbal and others v. Federal Investigation Agency and others PLD 1986 Lah. 424; Akbar Ali and others v. The Assistant Director, FIA and others 1990 ALD 28(1); Abdul Razzaq and others v. Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Services Corporation Ltd., Lahore and others 1992 PCr.LJ 1884; Mian Hamza Shahbaz Sharif v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1999 PCr.LJ 1584 and Abdul Latif v. G.M. Paracha and others 1981 SCMR 1101 have taken the view that since the Preamble gives the reason for creating the agency and the reason is to investigate certain offences committed in connection with matters concerning the Federal Government, therefore, the Agency will have no jurisdiction to investigate offences committed in or in relation to private banks like Allied Bank, ABN Amero etc.... ... ... ...As involved in these cases. The other view represented in Shah Muhammad Khan v. The Federation of Pakistan PLD 1958 Lahore 137, Iftikhar Hussain and others v.
Government of Pakistan and others 2001 PCr.LJ 146 and Asif Saigol and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1998 Lah. 287, is that language of section 3 being clear, there is no need to refer to the Preamble and therefore, even offences committed in respect of non-Government Banks/Organizations can be investigated by the Agency. Alternatively, it has been held that since Banking in Pakistan is regulated by Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, a Federal Statute, as also by State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956, another Federal Statute, therefore, the offence committed in private but Scheduled Banks will be an offence committed in connection with a matter which concerns the Federal Government and, therefore, the Agency can competently register and investigate the case. Incidentally, this is the view taken by learned Single Bench against which judgment Intra-Court Appeal No,1054 of 1997 is pending.
9. It is well-established that preamble is not a part of statute as such and its scope is only to indicate legislative intention. It is equally settled that if the enacting provision is clear the same has to be given effect, by giving plain and literal meaning of the words and in such a situation reference to preamble may not be made. The Murree Brewery Co. Ltd. v. Pakistan through the Secretary to Government of Pakistan and others PLD 1972 SC 279; Hassan and others v. Fancy Foundation PLD 1975 SC 1; Mst. Zainab Bibi and others v. Mst. Bilqis Bibi and others PLD 1981SC 56 and Pakistan Railway v. Abdul Haqique and others 1991 SCMR 657 can be profitably referred.
10. Section 3 of the Act is relevant and the same is reproduced:-- "3. Constitution of the Agency.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Federal Government may constitute an Agency to be called the Federal Investigation Agency for inquiry into, and investigation of, the offences specified in the Schedule, including an attempt of conspiracy to commit, and abetment of, any such offence.
(2) The Agency shall consist of a Director-General to be appointed by the Federal Government and such number of other officers as the Federal Government may, from time to time, appoint to be members of the Agency."
Plain reading of subsection (1) hardly admits of any doubt as to the command contained in this section. It authorizes the Federal Government to constitute the Agency "for inquiry into, and investigation of, the offences specified in the Schedule, including an attempt... ...". The meaning is very clear that the Agency can inquire into and investigate the offences mentioned in Item No,1 of the Schedule. I see no ambiguity in the words used in section 3 of the Act. There is no word limiting or restricting the power of the Agency to inquire into and investigate offences specified in the Schedule, but committed in respect of the Banks owned and managed by. Federal Government. I see no reason to read into subsection (1) of section 3 of the Act, the words "Committed in respect of or in relation to Government owned/managed. Banks". At the cost of repetition it may be restated that if the language of the enacting part is clear and unambiguous, there is no need to refer to the preamble. I, therefore, hold that the Agency had competently registered and investigated the cases and that F.I.Rs, could not be quashed on the ground that the Agency lacked power to register the cases. For the sake of arguments let us assume that there is some doubt and ambiguity in section 3(1) of the Act and in order to remove the same, let us revert to the preamble. The language of the preamble has been reproduced above. In all the cases before us F.I.Rs, have been registered for offences in banks which are private but are Scheduled Banks within the meaning of Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962/State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956. Now does an offence committed in such banks be said to be an offence committed "in connection with matters concerning the Federal Government, and for matters connected therewith". It will be seen that the words used in the preamble are of wide import. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners that banking is a subject allocated by the Constitution, to the Federation. It is borne in the Legislative List of the Federation (Article 87 read with Federal Legislative List, Fourth Schedule, Part I, Item No,28 to the Constitution). Currency, whether local or foreign, is also a Federal subject. The Banks deal in money/currency. Nobody can transact Banking business in Pakistan without being registered as a Banking Company. The State Bank of Pakistan grants registration to Banks as also confers the status of Scheduled Bank. The State Bank is required to supervise the banking business in Pakistan and under the statute (State Bank Act, 1956) any direction issued by the State Bank is binding on the Banks and has to be complied with. State Bank fixes the bank rate and also determines and controls the credit policies of the Banks. The banking, therefore, is a matter concerning the Federal Government. Just to emphasize, if God forbid Banks fail in this country or for lack of confidence, there is a rush for money on banks, the whole economy may crumble and suffer colossal losses.
Can it be said, therefore, that if criminal offences are committed in private banks, it does not concern the Federal Government or this is not connected with a matter concerning the Federal Government? To me the answer is clear and it is YES. Therefore, from this point of view as well the Agency is competent to inquire into and investigate offences taking place in private but Scheduled Banks, provided such offences are mentioned in the Schedule. The case of Shah Muhammad Khan v. The Federation of Pakistan and 2 others PLD 1958 (W.P.) Lahore 137, a Division Bench Judgment, is extremely instructive in this regard. In this case allegation was that of misappropriation of District Board Funds. The question was whether Special Police Establishment created under Ordinance VIII of 1948 had the jurisdiction to investigate such offences. Section 3 of the Ordinance used the expression "matters concerning the Central and Provincial Governments". It was held that misappropriation of District Board Funds comes within the phrase "matters concerning the Provincial Government" occurring in section 3 of the Pakistan Special Police Establishment Ordinance (VIII of 1948) and so the Special Police Establishment has the jurisdiction to investigate an offence involving misappropriation of District Board Funds.. It may be noticed that District Board was created under District Boards Act (XX of 1883), and had a separate legal status
12. For the above reasons, we hold that the Federal Investigation Agency has the jurisdiction to inquire into and investigate the offences taking place in or in relation to private banks (not owned or managed by Federal Government), which are Scheduled Banks within the meaning of Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 read with State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956. In view of this finding, Intra- Court Appeal No,1054 of 1997 is dismissed. For the same reasons Writ Petitions Nos.9790 of 1999, 29377 of 1997, 13798 of 2000 and 6658 of 2002 are also dismissed.
13. As the investigations remained stayed due to orders passed by this Court, the Investigating Officers are directed to complete the investigation expeditiously. In the event the challans are submitted the same are also directed to be proceeded with expeditiously in accordance with law.
No order as to costs.