IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR
Criminal Appeal No. D –04 of 2021
Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput
Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah.
Appellant: M/S Zarai Tarqiyati Bank Ltd. Naushahro Feroze Branch, District Naushahro Feroze Through its Manager namely Ali Muhammad Ghumro son of Pir Bux.
Through Mr. Nisar Ahmed G. Abro, Deputy Attorney General, Pakistan.
Respondents: 1. Bakhat Ali son of Muhammad Hashim bycaste Wagan, R/O Village Jam Wagan, Deh Kalro, P.O Phull, Taluka and District Naushahro Feroze.
2. Banking Court No.II, Sukkur.
Date of hearing: 25-01-2023.
Date of decision: 25-01-2023.
J U D G M E N T
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J-. The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant Crl. Appeal are that the appellant extended loan to private respondent on execution of banking documents for purchase of Tractor Trolley, which he purchased and duly mortgaged with the appellant, it was to be owned by the appellant and private respondent jointly till re-payment of finance or fulfillment of obligation by the private respondent, which the private respondent sold, without consent of the appellant and/or redeeming mortgage clearance of the loan, contrary to the terms of mortgage. It was in these circumstances, the appellant filed a Direct Complaint for prosecution of the private respondent for committing offence under the Provisions of Section 20 (a, b and c) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001, it was dismissed by learned Judge Bank Court-II, Sukkur vide order dated 07-01-2021, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court by preferring the instant Crl. Appeal.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that learned trial Court has dismissed the Complaint of the appellant by way of impugned order in summary manner without assigning the cogent reason and/or giving any weight to the documentary evidence, therefore, such order being illegal is liable to be examined by this Court by way of instant Crl. Appeal.
4. None has come forward to advance arguments on behalf of respondents.
5. Heard arguments and perused the record.
6. There is line of demarcation between inquiry and trial. In inquiry, the complainant has to make out the case for cognizance and his burden to do so is light. In trial, the complainant has to prove his case beyond shadow of doubt and his burden to do so is heavy. Obviously, the instant direct complaint has been dismissed by learned trial Judge in a summary manner mainly for the reason that no suit for recovery of loan extended to the private respondent has been filed by the appellant. It is settled by now that Criminal and Civil liabilities could go side by side. The Tractor and Trolley were owned by the appellant and private respondent jointly and it was subject to re-payment of financial facility so extended and without such fulfillment of obligation, it was allegedly sold by the private respondent to someone else, such act obviously constitute an offence on his part as is alleged by the appellant. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside with direction to learned trial Court to make further inquiry into the case and then to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
7. The instant Crl. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.