1. ' The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was a Commodore in Pakistan Navy and was seconded for service in Pakistan National Shipping Corporation, wherefrom he retired. In 2002 he was involved in a NAB Reference No.225 of 2002 for alleged misuse of authority leading to payment of exorbitant price for purchase of ships. He was convicted by the Accountability Court but upon appeal this Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the petitioner vide judgment dated 4-3-2004, wherein it was, inter alia observed "we find that there is no iota of evidence on record to show that any exorbitant price was paid for the purchase of three ships thereby causing any loss to the exchequer or PNSC. It is established on record that no loss or any misuse was caused as a result of the purchase transaction. There is nothing on record to show that any favour was done to anybody for the purpose of any gain or benefit "
2. ' The NAB filed a petition for leave to appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court to which the petitioner filed a caveat, but till date it appears that no hearing of the leave petition has even been sought.
3. ' The petitioner applied for issuance of passport in 2004 as his previous one had expired, but the same was not issued. Upon his request for being apprised of the reason, he was informed that his name had been placed on the Exit Control List at the request of NAB. Since upon his request to exclude his name from ECL, he was informed that his request could not be accepted as the recommending agency has opposed removal on his name from ECL.
4. The petitioner has moved this Court for redress. The respondent simply stated his name was not deleted from the list merely on account of reconunendationtf NAB. Mr. Nadeem Azhar Siddiqui, learned DAG, frankly stated that opposition by NAB was the sole ground for placing restriction on the petitioner's right to travel abroad. We issued notice to Mr. Amanullah Khan, Special Prosecutor, NAB, who states on instruction that the deletion of the petitioner's name from ECL is being opposed by his client on account of the fact that the petition for leave to appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court is still pending.
5. We regret we find no force in the above ground urged. Admittedly the order of acquittal passed by this Court has taken effect for all legal purposes and has not been suspended or modified by the Honourable Supreme Court. Even an interim restraint on the petitioner's right to travel abroad has not been obtained. Even otherwise it is not possible to accept the contention that legal proceedings against the petitioner are pending because, in our view, the judgment of this Court ought to be treated as final till such time that leave to appeal is granted by the Honourable Supreme Court. The above view is reduced from the following observation of the Honourable Supreme Court in The State v. Dosso and others (PLD 1958 Supreme Court (Pak.) 533) appearing at 542, which has not been reversed in any subsequent judgment.
6. "No judgment, order or writ of a High Court Can be considered to be final when either that Court has certified the case to be a fit one for appeal and,proceedings for appeal have been taken or when the Supreihe Court itself has granted special leave to appeal from that judgment, order or writ."
7. In instant case none of the two events have happened and no effort appears to have been made on the part of NAB to get the leave petition fixed for hearing despite the passage of one year from its filing or even obtained an interim order. The petition is accordingly allowed and the respondents are directed to remove the name of the petitioner from the Exit Control List.