' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- Petitioner is aggrieved by Sindh High Court order, dated 6-12-2006 dismissing her constitutional petition arising out of order, dated 4-9-2006 whereby learned 'Judge, Accountability Court No,IV, Karachi allowed application under section 540, Cr.P.C. Permitting the prosecution to examine Mr. Ghulam Farooq, Deputy Director, National Accountability Bureau (NAB) in order to produce authorization letter issued by the Chairman, NAB authorizing Major-General Tariq Bashir, Director-General NAB (Sindh) to order an investigation and forward report thereof.
2. Precise grievance of the petitioner-accused, facing trial on the charge under section 10 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 before Accountability Court, is that after examination of Mr. Muhammad Hashim Qureshi P.W.2, prosecution had closed their side of evidence on 8-6-2006 whereas instant application under section 540, Cr.P.C. Filed by Special Prosecutor, NAB on 28-6- 2006 seeking permission of the Court to examine abovesaid witness in order to produce the letter of authorization purportedly issued by Chairman, NAB dated 19-4-2002.
3. We have heard Mr. Farooq H. Naek, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and gone through the impugned ,orders passed by the trial Court and the High Court. It is, inter alia, contended that a letter of authorization under section 18-D of the NAB Ordinance, 1999 authorizing Mr. Muhammad Hashim Qureshi, Assistant Director, F.I.A., Investigating Officer, NAB dated 13-8-2002 has already been exhibited as Exh.18/1, which purports to show that Major Ijaz Ahmed has to investigate and submit his report together with evidence and other material collected by him for the approval of Chairman, NAB.
4. Necessity to move an application after the close of prosecution side arose as the learned defence counsel in his cross-examination challenged the authority of Mr. Muhammad Hashim Qureshi, Investigating Officer regarding validity of investigation and submission of Reference on his report. It is inter alia, pointed out that the Investigating Officer claimed to be duly authorized by Major-General Tariq Bashir, Director-General (NAB), Sindh and produced in evidence the letter of authorization; that Mr. Ghulam Farooq is neither shown in the calendar of witnesses nor is the document, sought to be produced in evidence, shown in the list of documents, which, if allowed to be examined, would be prejudicial to the defence of the petitioner and violative of the provisions contained in clause (c) of section 18 of the NAB Ordinance, which reads as under:--- "(6) Where the Chairman, NAB, or an officer of the NAB duly authorized by him is of the opinion that it is, or may be, necessary and appropriate to initiate proceedings against any person, he shall refer the matter for inquiry or investigation."
5. Without commenting on the merits of the submissions advanced at the Bar at the leave stage, we are inclined to grant leave in order to A examine the questions raised in detail, as such questions do not appear to have been discussed by the trial Court as well as the High Court in details. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted.
6. Operation of the impugned order shall remain suspended till the hearing of the appeal , which shall be made ready on its present record and with further documents, if any, within three months positively,