Anda di halaman 1dari 1

Plaintiff: B Defendant: A

Case facts: A lent money to B on 2nd October 2006 and 17th January 2007. The amount was 1 million for both the years. Profit payments promised to A were Rs 40,000/- per month. A demands money back but B is using Punjab ordinance against him and has been advised to launch an FIR against him. The case facts also state that the payments made were irregular and a payment had been made in 2009. B is right in the case because The Punjab prohibition of money lending act states in Section 2 sub clause (b) that Private Money Lender is a person who lends money on interest but does not include any corporation incorporated by the Federal or Provincial Government as a bank or a finance corporation or a cooperative society. According to this A falls in the definition of a private money lender. Section 2 sub clause states (c) also states that Interest means and include the return to be made over and above what was actually lent whether the same is charged or sought to be recovered specifically by way of interest or otherwise. The profit payments that were to be made to A fall under this section. The act clearly states in section 3 that No person, individually or collectively, shall engage himself in private money lending in the Province of the Punjab and any person who contravenes section 3 of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years or with fine which may extend to five hundred thousand rupees or with both under section 4. This gives him the right to file an FIR against A for his arrest as section 6 states any offence committed under section 3 shall be cognizable. However an important point to note is the date of the transaction. The said act was issued on 30 June 2007 .The agreements were made according to the Punjab Money Lenders Ordinance 1960 and the transaction was not illegal and no FIR could be charged according to the 1960 Ordinance. To support my argument I would cite article 12 of the constitution Protection against retrospective punishment. (1) No law shall authorize the punishment of a person:(a) for an act or omission that was not punishable by law at the time of the act or omission;

The first ever case registered under the Prohibition of Private Money Lending Act of 2007 was on 10 May 2011 which was afterwards settled in the Jirgah. Another fact I found was section 9 according to which this act applied to anything done under the previous act so Mr. B infact can file an FIR against mr. A for being a money lender. Mr. A will be penalized Rs 500,000 or 10 months in prison or both. But Mr. B has to pay the principal amount back to Mr. A. However the constitution is superior to the act of 1970 so the penalty imposed on Mr. A could be relaxed or even excused.