Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 6450 2011 SLD 6450 2011 PCRLJ 493
Lahore High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 167-B of 2011, decided on 19th January, 2011.
Before Mansoor Akbar Kokab, J
Anees Abbas Sheikh for Petitioner. Muhammad Akhlaq, D.P.G. for the State. Barrister Muhammad Ahmad Pansota and Mujahid Hussain Pansota for the Complainant. Muhammad Razak Sindhu, Inspector with record.

FAROOQ ARSHAD---Petitioner

VS

THE STATE and another---Respondents

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 497

Law: Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984

Section: 2(d),3

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984), Ss.2(d) & 3---Bail application, return of---Scheduled offence---Counsel for the complainant objected to the jurisdiction of High Court to deal with bail application, contending that as the mutter related to the Bank, Special Court constituted under S.3 of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, had the exclusive jurisdiction and High Court could not deal with the matter---Presentation of a forged cheque to a Bank and attempt to get it encashed, definitely would indulge the Bank to do the business of transaction of money from one account to another, thereby the Bank was involved which would mean that scheduled offence was committed or alleged to have been committed by a private person dealing with the business of a bank and would fall within the definition of S.2(d) of Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984---High Court lacked the jurisdiction to deal with bail application, which was returned---Applicant could adopt the appropriate remedy before appropriate court. 1986 PCr.LJ 567 ref. ORDER MANSOOR AKBAR KOKAB, JUSTICE:---.--- As per F.I.R. registered with Police Station Civil Line, District Faisalabad, dated 12-11-2010, on the written complaint of Zahid Bashir, Branch Manager Faysal Bank Ltd., Faisalabad, the complaint was lodged to the effect that certain persons attempted to encash a forged cheque but failed and upon apprehending during investigation they disclosed the number of persons involved in said business i.e. encashment of fake and forged cheques after preparation of the same. Admittedly during investigation the net was widen and even at least the one bank official was roped into. 2. The learned counsel for the complainant objects the jurisdiction of this court to deal with the present bail application contending that- as the matter relates to bank, therefore, the Special Court constituted under 16 section 3 of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Court) Ordinance 1984, have the exclusive jurisdiction and. the present court may not deal with…
🔒
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