' Applicant, Abid Shahzad, is facing trial in the Special Court (Offences in Banks) Sindh at Karachi in Special Case No, 62 of 2000 pertaining to F.I.R. No, 36/2000 of F.I.A. CBC, Karachi which was registered while complainant Farrukh Sami was 'working as Chief Manager Bank Al-Falah Limited, I.I.Chundrigar Road, Karachi who had sent such a letter dated 7-9-2000 to the Deputy Director Commercial Bank Circle, Federal Investigation Agency, Karachi. The contents of the F.I.R. May be reproduced hereunder for the sake of appreciation of the facts involved in this criminal revision application:--- "1. That on 27-8-2000, a complaint was filed by Bank Alfalah Limited against the aforementioned accused Shehzad Abid for embezzlement of approximately Rs, 9.2 million. The said accused was in employment of aforementioned bank and serving in the capacity of Deputy Manager Accounts, Main Branch, 1. 1 . Chundrigar Road, Bank Alfalah Limited, Karachi at the time of committing fraud.
2. That in the course of his service, accused Shehzad Abid opened personal accounts and embezzled funds from different accounts of the bank for his personal use and gain in order to cause loss to Bank Alfalah Limited.
3. That during the course of routine checkup, it transpired that an amount of approximately Rs, 9.2 million was embezzled, misappropriated by accused Shehzad Abid.
4. That in this context accused Shehzad Abid made a voluntary confessional statement before the officials of the Bank, which is on record.
5. That on the basis of complaint dated 27-8-2000 an F.I.R. Bearing No, 335 of 2000 was lodged at Police Station, Kharadar on 28-8-2000 but since the offences fell within the ambit of Offences in respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, the case was transferred before present authorities.
6. That on 28-8-2000, remand was obtained by the F.I.A. Authorities from Special Banking Court up to 4-9-2000, and subsequently the same has now been extended to 8-9-2000.
7. That during this period, Bank Officials with the help of F.I.A. Authorities have unearthed other frauds, misappropriations and breach of trust committed by accused Shehzad Abid, to the effect that on 14-7-1998, the accused Shehzad Abid, introduced Account No, 01335346 maintained by his wife accused Rashda Rehman daughter of Abdul Rehman resident of F-2/11; Maymar Heights. Block 14, Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi, holding NIC No, 516-58-200139 and in connivance with each other accused Shahzad Abid debited Rs,55 lacs from Account No,60181095 (Account of Profit Paid on HBI.
Account IICEB Karachi) on 21-7-1998, and credited the same through credit transfer into the account of his wife accused Rashida Rehman holding Account No,1335346.
8. That thereafter, on 8-6-1999, the accused Shehzad Abid debited Account No,80511028 (Account of Interest Payable on FCY Term Deposits, Karachi) by Rs,30 lacs and by credit transfer, credited Rs,30 lacs into the account of accused Rashida Rehman on 8-6-1999.
9. That this amount of Rs,85 lacs was subsequently withdrawn from Account No, 01335346 maintained by accused Rashida Rehman (Photostat copies of transactions from Account Nos.01335346, 60181095 and 80511028 are submitted herewith and marked as Annexures 'A', 'B' and 'C' respectively.
10. That the account opening from dated 4-7-1998, copy of NIC card of accused Rashda Rehman copy of specimen signatures card of accused Rashda Rehman alongwith F.I.R. 335/2000 already filed against accused Shehzad Abid are submitted herewith and marked as annexures 'D', 'E', 'F' and 'G' respectively).
11. That it is pertinent to mention here that since accused Shehzad Abid was the sole custodian of original vouchers as he was holding a very important position of Deputy Manager Accounts, deliberately destroyed the original vourchers in order to cover his illegal acts.
12. That under the premises, the accused have committed offences under sections 420, 406, 408 409, 468, 471 and 34 of Pakistan Penal Code.
13. That the Bank officials till the filing of this complaint have only succeeded in unearthing the embezzlement of Rs, 9.2 million by accused Shehzad Abid along and Rs, 8.5 million through accused Rashda Rehman. However detail inquiry to verify records and entries is still being carried out and there is every likelihood that the amount embezzled will be much higher than 17.7 million as per investigation carried forward so".
' It so appears that the said complainant namely Farrukh Sami the then Chief Manager allegedly committed fraud/misappropriation of bank amounts/tamperance with the official record and thereafter he allegedly left the country and is reportedly absconding in such a case, separately instituted against him. It further appears that under such circumstances, the prosecution in this case moved an application therein to permit it to examine Hassan Haider Zaidi in place of the said complainant Farrukh Sami. Learned trial Court in the case in hand, allowed the said prayer through an order, against which the accused/applicant herein moved an application with prayer to recall the said order of the learned trial Court, which stands dismissed by order, dated 9-9-2003, with the observation of the learned trial Court that "application of the prosecution under section 540-A, Cr.P.C. Was allowed in the interests of justice to provide chance to the accused for cross- examining the witness who deposes the facts of the prosecution pertaining to the complainant etc. As the complainant cannot be produced". Hence, this criminal revision application is filed by the applicant/accused.
' We have heard Mr. Muhammad Tariq Siddiqui, Advocate for the accused/applicant and Mr. Khursheed A. Hashmi D.A.-G. For the State. Learned D.A.-G. Has supported the impugned order of the learned trial Court and has argued that settled principles of law in this regard are to the effect that where evidence of any person appears to be essential to the just decision of the case trial Court is empowered, to summon any such person as a witness or examine any such person in attendance though not summoned as a witness or to recall and re-examine any such person accordingly.
' Learned counsel for the applicant was asked as to what prejudice is caused to the applicant by the impugned order of the learned trial Court whereby Hassan Haider Zaidi has been allowed by the trial Court to be examined in place of original complainant Farrukh Sami, to which learned counsel did not point out any such prejudice having been caused to the applicant.
' Learned D.A.-G. Has rightly opposed this criminal revision application. The learned trial Court allowed the application under section 540-A, Cr.P.C. Of the prosecution in accordance with the settled provisions of law to that effect.
' The contents of the F.I.R. Lodged by original complainant, named above, having been reproduced the same clearly indicate that the original complainant had not filed the said complaint in his own/personal capacity, but on the other contrary had filed the same in the discharge of his official duties, which then cast on him to that effect. The allegations against the present accused in the case in hand are to the effect that he committed misappropriation/embezzlement of the bank amounts/property; only because Farrukh Sami was then working as Chief Manager of Bank Al- Falah Limited, therefore, he had to file such F.I.R. Against the present accused applicant and had someone else has been posted in place of Farrukh Sami as the then Chief Manager, then such other person would have also been legally bound to lodge very same complaint against whom such allegations of "fraud/misappropriation of bank amounts and pr,operty/embezzlement were made.
' In such type of cases the successor in office in bank has to discharge the very same duties which were then cast by law on his predecessor in the chair, and only because the original complainant in such cases is not found available, for any reason, the accused of such a case cannot be allowed to take the benefit of any nature of any such absence of such complainant/witness on the contrary the law enjoins upon the trial Court to fully take care of such situation and to examine all necessary witnesses so that all relevant and necessary evidence is produced in the particular case for the purpose of just and proper decision of the case.
' Even if more witnesses than one are not found available in such type of cases, then also all such requests for examination of some other officers in place of the original officers of the bank then in chair before the present time officers are to be allowed in order to see as to whether or not the accused, charged with the allegations in such cases, has actually committed offence or not.
' The policy of the law is to see that all the accused persons who are proved to have committed the offence with which they stand charged are punished according to law and should not go unpunished for any such technical reasons. As pointed out above,. P.W. Hassan Haider Zaidi, now sought by the prosecution to be examined as its witness, is affiliated with the business affairs of the very same bank where in original complainant Farrukh Sami was serving as Chief Manager, and if, witness Hassan Haider Zaidi is fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, then he cannot be disallowed to be examined as one of the prosecution witnesses.
' In a case reported in 2000 SCM R 102 Abdul Salam v. State Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan was pleased to hold that power to summon material witness under section 540, Cr.P.C. Is not subject to any condition and can be exercised whether or not a person is cited as witness in the challan case or private complaint, as the case may and further that only requirement is that he should be a material witness and his evidence should be essential for just decision of the case.
' In another case Dildar v. State PLD 2001 SC 384 Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan was pleased to hold that where evidence of any person appears to .Be essential to the just decision of the case, trial Court is empowered to summon any such person as a witness and to examine any person in attendance though not summoned as witness or recall and re-examine any such person accordingly.
' As stated above, the witness now sought to be examined by the prosecution is Incharge of the Export Department of Bank Al-Falah and is said to be well conversant with the facts of the case including the documentary evidence thereof and prima facie appears to be a necessary witness of the prosecution.
' Accordingly, learned trial Court has rightly allowed such a request of the prosecution and no prejudice is caused to the accused/applicant, consequently, this criminal revision application has no merit therein which is hereby dismissed accordingly.