KARACHI: A two-member bench of the Sindh High Court (SHC) has issued notices to Director General Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), Deputy Director FIR, Investigation Officer FIA on a constitutional petition filed by HASCOL Petroleum Limited against lodging first information report (FIR) against petitioner for charges of money laundering etc.
On 25 February 2022, during the hearing, Salahuddin Ahmed Advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioner and argued that through this petition the Petitioner has challenged the inquiries initiated and notices issued by the Respondent No. 2 (“FIA”) against the Petitioner, its management and its employees in respect of sanctioned loans obtained by the Petitioner from scheduled/commercial banks (“financial institutions/banks”).
He further argued that the FIA is inquiring into the affairs of the Petitioner alleging that the Petitioner has misutilized the loans that it had obtained and, on that basis, has initiated the said inquiries, which amount to a fishing and roving expedition. The Petitioner submits that the so-called mis-utilization of sanctioned loans, if any, could at best (if at all) be offences under the Financial Institution (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 (‘FIO 2001’), which are exclusively triable by the Banking Courts and that the FIO 2001 does not find mention/is not included in the Schedule of the Federal Investigation Agency Act 1974 (‘Act 1974’). The Inquiries initiated by the FIA are, therefore, wholly without jurisdiction.
He states that Petitioner during the course of its business and since its listing on the Pakistan Stock Exchange in 2014 has at times availed various finance facilities/loans from a number of financial institutions/banks operating in Pakistan, and the Petitioner’s relationship with these financial institutions is regulated and governed under the FIO 2001.
Counsel added That these finance facilities were obtained by the Petitioner for the purposes of its operations and to develop vital infrastructure, such as bulk oil storages and petrol pumps, without which it would not be possible to carry out the business of oil marketing.
He submits that it is a matter of record that between the years 2010 to 2020 the Petitioner’s business grew exponentially, and the Petitioner grew from a small oil marketing company (‘OMC’) to be a market leader of the industry. In the year 2020 – due to the desire of Vitol, the largest shareholder of the Petitioner – there was a significant change in management, and nearly all the directors of the board were changed, and other employees occupying top managerial offices were also replaced. It is pertinent to mention that the present management of the Petitioner is almost entirely different to the one which was present i.e. pre-2020.
Counsel added that 8th July 2021 the Respondent No. 4 issued a notice to the Chief Financial Officer of the Petitioner under Section 94 of the CrPC (‘1st Notice’) stating that an Enquiry No. 127/2021 (‘Impugned Inquiry – I’) had been initiated against the Petitioner by the Respondents for allegedly mis-utilizing loans and financial facilities granted by financial institutions, on the basis of alleged bogus purchases of petroleum products. A Copy of 1st Notice dated 8 July 202.
He pleaded the court may declare that the FIA has no jurisdiction to inquire and/or investigate any offence (s) pertaining to alleged mis-utilization of finance facilities/loans.
Court also may declare that the Respondents have no jurisdiction to inquire and/or investigate offences falling under the FIO 2001 as the same does not find mention in the Schedule to the Act 1974.Inquiry No.127/2021 is illegal, without jurisdiction, void ab initio, and to quash the same.
