1. ' MUSHIR ALAM, J.-Granted.
2. Listed application C.M.A. No. 1019 of 2007 has been made by the petitioner seeking directions for release of the petitioner without any surety.
2. ' It appears that petitioner was facing trial in F.I.R. No. 17 of 2002, 10 of 2003 both of F.I.A./CCC and was convicted by the learned Special Court (Offences in Banks) Sindh at Karachi vide conviction judgment dated 20-6-2005. Conviction judgment was set aside by this Court on 17-8-2006 and was recorded as follows:- "In the circumstances the order of the Banking Court dated 20-6-2005 subject-matter in Criminal Appeal No. 228 of 2006 cannot be sustained and is set aside, the appeal is allowed. The concerned authority may seek its remedy available in the relevant forum while the proceedings in F.I.R. No. 17 of 2002, which has been initiated on the basis of the above sort of allegations and is subject- matter of C.P. No.D-229 of 2006 are quashed and petition stands allowed with the observation that the concerned authorities may seek its remedy before proper forum. Consequent to this order and the accused, if he is in custody may he released in the matters pertaining 'to the F.I.R. No. 10 of 2003 and 17 of 2002 of F.I.A./C.C.C. (Karachi), if not- required in any other case".
3. ' It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner applied for the release before the learned Special Court (Offences in Banks) Sindh at Karachi but he was sent back to be produced as and when directed by the learned Commercial Court as the Banking Court has no jurisdiction in the matter. It is therefore, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since he has been ordered to be released forthwith, he should be released without much a do.
4. ' Mr. Mehmood Alam Rizvi learned Standing Counsel contends that this Court had quashed the proceedings in the F.I.Rs. Referred to above holding that the jurisdiction is that of the Commercial Court and not that of the Banking Court. He therefore, urged that the applicants were released in the F.I.R. Recorded above and as per directions of this Court he was to be released if not required in any other case. He has drawn our attention to the application for the release made before the learned trial Court, it clearly mentions that the applicant is seeking release in F.I.R, No. 16 of 2002, 8 of 2003 and 9 of 2003 subject-matter of Criminal Case No.42 of 2002, 28 of 2003 and 29 of 2003. He therefore, contends that such cases are still pending against the applicants and though in principle it has been decided by this Court that in the giving facts and circumstances no case for banking. f?Aud is made out and the offence relates to export related dispute triable by the Commercial Court. Mr. Mahmood concedes that till such time Export Promotion Bureau take up case and lodge complaint, accused are not to be kept in custody. In view of principle laid down by this Court in instant Criminal Appeal No.228 of 2006 (reported in 2006 PCr.LJ 1886).
5. ' Under the given circumstances, it may be observed that listed application should not have been made in the instant petition. Petitioner should have filed proper bail application separately. It is settled principle of law that one proceeding could always be converted into other provided Court has jurisdiction. We accordingly treat it as a separate bail application in F.I.R. No. 16 of 2002, 8 of 2003 and 9 of 2003 and accordingly it is pointed out by the learned counsel that the applicant has already been released on personal bonds by the Custom Court. He further states that he has already undergone over 5 years conviction and he has already served out the sentence without trial in subject F.I.Rs. Under the circumstances and by consent the applicant be released on personal bond. Instant application be numbered as bail application and disposed of accordingly.