2020 C L D 359
Applicant, a Microfinance Institution contended that company provided loan facility on the collateral of gold ornaments; that it hired the services of respondent for the purpose of verifying the quality of gold ornaments; that a large number of its clients obtained loan facility and became defaulter and when the gold ornaments, deposited by them as collateral, were checked by an independent expert, it was found that the same were artificial, as such, company sought registration of FIR against the respondent
Applicant company was a Micro Finance Institution which could not be deemed to be a Banking Company in view of subsection (2) of S. 3 of Microfinance Institutions Ordinance, 2001.
Criminal miscellaneous application was allowed and the SHO concerned was directed to record the statement of the applicant.
2020 C L D 359[Sindh (Hyderabad Bench)]Before Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui, JTELENOR MICRO FINANCE BANK LIMITED through Authorized Person---ApplicantVersusThe STATE and 3 others---RespondentsCriminal Miscellaneous Application No. S-380 of 2018, decided on 21st December, 2018.
Microfinance Institutions Ordinance (LV of 2001)---
S.3(2)--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 22-A & 22-B---Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Powers of---Registration of FIR---Microfinance Institution not to be deemed to be a Banking Company---Scope.
Applicant, a Microfinance Institution contended that company provided loan facility on the collateral of gold ornaments; that it hired the services of respondent for the purpose of verifying the quality of gold ornaments; that a large number of its clients obtained loan facility and became defaulter and when the gold ornaments, deposited by them as collateral, were checked by an independent expert, it was found that the same were artificial, as such, company sought registration of FIR against the respondent.
Respondent contended that proper course for the applicant company was to file a suit for damages and that it was a Bank, as such, could not lodge FIR and the only course available to it was to file a private complaint before the Banking Court---Validity.
Held, agreement between the applicant company and respondent indicated that the services of respondent were hired as jeweler to check and verify the gold ornaments, which were required to be deposited with the applicant as collateral.
Procedure provided for the same was that the customer approached the respondent, where he checked the ornaments and then sealed them in a bag which was handed over to the applicant company in sealed condition at the time of obtaining financing facility.
Nonetheless, a good number of customer's ornaments were found fake and imitation, as such the applicant company sustained losses, which was not possible without any criminal folly on the part of respondent.
Applicant company was a Micro Finance Institution which could not be deemed to be a Banking Company in view of subsection (2) of S. 3 of Microfinance Institutions Ordinance, 2001.
Criminal miscellaneous application was allowed and the SHO concerned was directed to record the statement of the applicant.
0 Comments