Case Details

Citation(s)
2012 SLG 2217 2012 SLD 2217 2012 CLD 609
Sindh High Court
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 161 of 2010, decision dated: 23rd November, 2011.
FAISAL ARAB AND AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JJ
Ain-ud-Din for Appellant. Dur Muhammad Shah for
Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 7.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Attorney

VS

ABDUL LATIF CHANNA and 6 others

Law:

Section:

Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)-------S. 19---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 265-K & 417---Appeal against acquittal--- Application filed by three respondents under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. for acquittal was allowed by Banking Court---Allegation against the respondents was that machinery/plant for which loan was provided, was missing and the mortgaged property had been handed over to someone else on lease---Allegations of mis-utilization of the finance and the removal of machinery/plant were directed against one respondent---Counsel for the bank had contended that it was an admitted position that loan was obtained by said three respondents and they were liable for the criminal offence---Validity---Under the law, obtaining loan and inability to pay back the same was not a criminal offence---It could be a civil liability to be proceeded in civil forum provided under the law, but the commission of default in repayment of loan, would not give birth to a criminal offence---Machinery/plant had been removed which allegation was directed against one respondent only---Criminal proceedings against said respondent, in circumstances, would continue, whereas no useful purpose would be served, if remaining respondents were proceeded against; as there was no likelihood of their conviction, in the circumstances of the case. ORDER Appellant filed criminal proceedings against the respondents under section 19 of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 on the allegation that the machinery/plant, for which loan was provided, has been missing and the mortgaged property has been handed over to some one else on lease. Respondents Nos.1, 2 and 7 moved application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C., on the ground that there is no substance in the allegations against them and prayed for their acquittal, which was allowed and the said respondents were acquitted by the Banking Court vide order dated 5-3-2010 and against the said order this Criminal Acquittal Appeal has been filed. Apparently there was a consent given by the counsel for the appellant which has been denied by him today. Counsel for…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492