1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, J.---Through these three Constitutional petitions, proposed to be disposed of by this common order. Petitioners, Muhammad Nazimuddin (in C.P. No,D-348/2007), and State through Chairman NAB (in C.Ps. Nos. D-381 and D-507 of 2007) have approached this Court invoking its constitutional jurisdiction and have prayed for setting aside a common order dated 31-7-2006 in Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 29 and 34 of 2007 passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge Karachi East whereby she allowed the Revision Applications preferred against the order of XIIth Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Karachi East allowing the application of the petitioners seeking transfer of Criminal Case No,235 of 2005, arising out of F.I.R. Bearing No,252 of 2005 registered at Police Station Ferozabad under sections 420/406/408/506-II, P.P.C.
2. The brief facts as enunciated in the above said petitions are that complainant (Petitioner in C.P.
2. No,D-348 of 2007) set the law into motion by getting F.I.R. Bearing No,252 of 2005 registered at Police station Ferozabad under sections 420/406/408/506-II, P.P.C. Which reads as follows:-- "I, Muhammad Nazimuddin son of Alhaj Aftabuddin Ahmed R/o Bungalow No,116, Block 13-D/II, Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi, that "he is a foreigner and country manager Biman, Karachi, having office at 7 Progressive Centre 30/A/6, PECHS, Main Shahrah-e-Faisal, Karachi, Biman Bangladesh Airline, National Flat carrier of Bangladesh is operating in Pakistan, Karachi for the last many years, to serve its banking transaction, Rupali Bank Limited among so many banking business. Biman to remit its money through Rupali Bank also, few days before they requested Rupali Bank Authority to remit Rs,10,51,630,49.08 crore which was found lying in their bank account as per bank statement of the month of March 2005 received from Rupali Bank duly signed by Mr. Faizan Siddiqui, Export Manager Rupali Bank. Getting request, Rupali Bank authority became astonished and informed them through letter that only Rs,28,899,213.51 crore is lying in their account. After this when they gone through their office record in connection with bank statement, which present 'Zilpah Bank Authority was claiming is fake, resembled without amount that deposited. Since Rupali Bank Authority was claiming the Bank statement. Possessed by them was fake, so they requested them to supply them fresh Bank Statement. They found about seven crore rupees missing from Biman's account. As per their deposition slip and normal practice Mr. Faizan Siddiqui used to take money from Biman office and some time he received money from Biman. Mr. Ishtiaque Hussain son of Afzal Hussain, employee No,F.90160 Secretary-cum-Account Assistant cum T.P. Operator was dealing with cash and writing deposit slip along with money he was supposed to handover to Mr. Faizan Siddiqui. According to office record they started misappropriation from January 1998 to 2005. On 20th April, 2005 they sat with Mr. Faizan and Mr. Ishtiaque confessed that they have grappled full amount and shared among themselves. Taking responsibility of approximately Rs,7.6 crore, Mr. Ishtiaque has given confession in involvement in fraud cases and has given two cheques No,5206 and 526071 of MCB in the name of Biman Bangladesh Airlines, valued Rs,2,000,000 and Rs,2,305,903 respectively with the date of 21st April, 2005 and 23rd April, 2005, issued by respondent No,6. After giving the cheques he requested them not to go to the competent court of law and not to lodge F.I.R. Against him as he is a family person and he has father, mother, brother and sisters.
3. He will manage the rest of approximately Rs,7 crore and 25 lacs within weeks along with Faizan Ali Siddiqui. Thereafter Ishtiaque Hussain and his father Afzal Hussain started threatening him on telephone office that he is a foreigner national he doesn't know any one and if he approached any competent Court of law and to lodge F.I.R. Against them they will shoot him and they can make his children orphan because they know where he lives due to this he was feeling insecure. He claimed against accused Ishtiaque Hussain, Ali Faizan Siddiqui and Afzal Hussain of misappropriation, breach of trust, making forgery, making forged documents, embezzlement and threats and requested for taking action against them."
4. ' After the registration, as above, investigation took place by S.-I. Shahid Hussain, P.S. Ferozabad.
5. However, on 24-4-2005 petitioner in C.P. No,D-348/2007 submitted an application before respondent No,1 in. C.P. No,D-348 of 2006 and the petitioner in C.Ps.No,D-381 and D-507 of 2007 requesting therein that investigation against the accused persons nominated in the F.I.R. Be made by them (National Accountability Bureau). Meanwhile, two cheques bearing No,5206 and 526071, referred in the above F.I.R. Issued by Afzal Hussain (Respondent No,6 in C.P. No,D-348 of 2007) in the name of Messrs BIMAN Bangladesh Airlines, valued at Rs,20,00,000 and Rs,2,305,903, respectively, towards part satisfaction of the misappropriation were bounced. Another application was made by the petitioner in C.P. No,D-348 of 2007 in connection with same transaction on 10-6-2005 before respondent No,1 iii C.P.No,348 of 2007 and the petitioners in C.Ps. Nos. D-381 and D-507 of 2007 again requesting therein for conducting investigation by them. As a result of those efforts, National Accountability Bureau (respondent No,1. In C.P.No,348 of 2007) and the petitioners in C.Ps. Nos. D- 381 and D-507 of 2007) on 23-2-2006 moved an application under section 16-A(a) of the NAB Ordinance, 1999 before the Presiding Judge Court No,XII Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Karachi East (Respondent No,2 in C.P. No,348 of 2007) praying for transfer of Criminal Case No,235 of 2005 came out of registration of F.I.R. No,252 of 2005 from his Court to learned Administrative Judge, Accountability Courts, Sindh, Karachi. Notices were duly issued to all concerned and after hearing the parties said application was granted and the record and proceedings of the said criminal cases were directed to be sent to the learned Administrative Judge, Accountability Courts, Sindh, Karachi and accused persons nominated in the F.I.R. Were directed to appear before the Administrative Judge. The order of learned XIIth Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Karachi East was impugned by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (in C.P.No,D-381 of 2007) and respondents Nos. 5 and 6 (in C.P.No,D-348 of 2007) and respondent No,2 (in C.P.No,D-505 of 2007) through Criminal Revisions Applications bearing Nos.29 and 34 of 2006, respectively, and the learned IInd Addl. Sessions Judge Karachi East by her order dated 31-7-2006 set aside the order dated 25-5-2006 passed by XIIth Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Karachi East and directed him to expeditiously conclude the trial.
6. ' Petitioners in all above three petitions have impugned the order of learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge Karachi East.
7. ' We have heard M/s. Muhammad Ashraf Kazi Advocate and Ainuddin Khan, learned ADPGA for the Petitioners and Mr. Qadir H. Saeed Advocate for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in C.P.No,381 of 2007 and respondents Nos. 5 and 6 in C.P. No,D-348 of 2007. None else has represented respondent No,1 in C.P. No,D-507 of 2007.
8. ' It has been contended by the learned counsel for petitioner, Muhammad Nazimuddin, ( in C.P.No,D-348 of 2007) that the provisions of section 16(A)(a) of the NAB Ordinance are the mandatory provision of law which clearly tends to show that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force the Chairman, National Accountability Bureau may apply to any court of law or tribunal for transfer of the case involving a schedule offence pending before such Court or Tribunal and, on receipt of such application, such Court or Tribunal shall transfer the said case to any Court established under the Ordinance; He has further argued that learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge Karachi East has committed fundamental illegality while setting aside the order dated 25-5-2006 passed by XIIth Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Karachi East by misreading of sections 3, 16(A)(a) and 5(a) & (o) of the NAB Ordinance, more particularly section 9(a) read with section (vii) of the NAB Ordinance. It has been argued that respondents Nos.4 to 6 (in C.P. No,D-348/2007) have, prima 'facie, committed .a scheduled offence under section 9(a)(v)(xii) NAB Ordinance read with sections 201, 468, 471, P.P.C. Therefore there is no jurisdiction, with the learned Ind Addl. Sessions Judge Karachi East to set aside the order dated 25- 5-2006 passed by the learned XIIth Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Karachi East inasmuch as it is the case of the petitioner (in C.P. No,D-348 of 2007) that respondents Nos. 4 to 6 (in C.P. No,348 of 2007) were entrusted with the dominion over the accounts/money and they in furtherance of their common object misappropriated the amount of rupees seven crores by not depositing it with the Rupali Bank which amount on trust with them, therefore, respondents Nos. 4 and 5 along with respondent No,6 (in C.P.No,D-348 of 2007) have committed breach of trust punishable under section 9(a)(vii) of the NAB Ordinance, 1999. He has relied upon the cases of M.S. Khawaja v. The State PLD 1965 SC 287; Ch. Zulfiqar Ali v. Chairman, NAB and others PLD 2003 Lah. 593; M. Aslam Zaheer v. Ch. Shah Muhammad and another 2003 SCMR 1691; Sardar Ahmed Siyal and others v.
9. National Accountability Bureau and others 2004 SCMR 265 and Begum Salma Ahmed v. The State and others 2007 YLR 576 in support of his contentions.
10. ' Mr. Ainuddin Khan, learned ADPGA, appearing for the petitioners' (in C.Ps. Nos.D-381 and D-507 of 2007) while adopting the arguments of the learned counsel for the, petitioner in C.P.No,D-348 of 2007) has further argued that learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge Karachi East has erred in law while holding that Chairman NAB is not competent authority to decide transfer the case from any Court to Accountability Court under section 16-A(a) of the NAB Ordinance if a civil person is involved because section 16-A(a) of the NAB Ordinance clearly states that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Chairman, NAB, may apply to any Court of law or tribunal that any case involving' any offence under this Ordinance pending before such Court or Tribunal shall be transferred to a Court established under this Ordinance then such other court or tribunal shall transfer the said case to any court established under this Ordinance. He has, further, argued that the learned IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Karachi has erred in law that the NAB Ordinance 1999 is not applicable other than the scheduled offence inasmuch as section 4 thereof clearly defines that the said Ordinance shall extend to whole of Pakistan and apply to all persons in Pakistan that is to say all citizens of Pakistan and persons who are or have been in the service of Pakistan wherever they may be including areas which are part of Federally and. Provincially Administered Tribal Areas.
11. ' On the other hand, Mr. Qadir H. Saeed, learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in C.P.No,D-381 of 2007 and Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 in C.P.No,D-348 of 2007, while questioning the maintainability of these constitutional petitions on the grounds that they have been filed almost seven months after the date of impugned. Order inasmuch as hit by laches, has argued that impugned order is unexceptionable and does not suffer from any error or illegality inasmuch as the provisions of law and the pronouncements of the superior judiciary sought to be relied upon by the petitioners are inapplicable in the exigencies of the given situation and the case of respondent No,5 (in C.P.No,D-348 of 2007) is distinguishable on the basis of its own particular facts. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel that the crux of final paragraph of application dated 10-6- 2005 (annexure 'B to C.P. No,D-348 of 2007) moved before the Chairman, NAB, on the basis of which application under section 16-A of the NAB Ordinance, 1999 for transfer of the case pending before the Court of XIIth Judicial Magistrate Karachi East to an Accountability Court goes to show that the case was of important nature in view of the fact that money, allegedly misappropriated, belonged to a foreign entity but it is matter of record that the said money does not belong to State of Pakistan or any of its constituent units or any bank or financial institution, hence complaint has no nexus with national interest.
12. ' We have heard all the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, perused the record and have also gone through the case law, cited at the bar.
13. ' The gist of the arguments, advanced on behalf of the petitioners, is that the learned IInd Addl.
14. Sessions Judge Karachi East had no jurisdiction to set aside the order dated 25-5-2006 passed by the learned XIIth Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Karachi East and she, while setting aside the said order, has erred in law while holding that Chairman NAB is not competent authority to decide transfer the case from any Court to Accountability Court under section 16-A(a) of the NAB Ordinance if a civil person is involved.
15. ' We have examined the provisions of clause (a) of section 16-A of the Ordinance which clearly tends to show that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Chairman, National Accountability Bureau may apply to any Court of law or Tribunal for transfer of the case involving a schedule offence pending before such Court or. Tribunal and on receipt of such application, such Court or Tribunal shall transfer the said case to any. Court established under the Ordinance. It would appear that the object of the special law is to expedite the disposal of cases involving corruption, corrupt practices, misuse of power, misappropriation of property and A matters connected thereto under the Ordinance and to avoid procedural delays and technicalities. The language of the provision unequivocally reflects the intention of the Legislature that the provisions are self-contained and self-executory leaving no option for the Court before whom cases involving schedule offences are pending but to transfer the same. It is rather imperative to accede to such request unless it can be shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the offence against the B accused does not fall amongst the offences included in the Schedule. On no other ground can .a Court turn down a request for transfer of a pending case to Accountability Court on an application made by the Chairman, National Accountability Bureau under the Ordinance.
16. ' Furthermore, section 4 of the NAB Ordinance clearly defines that the said Ordinance shall extend to whole of Pakistan and apply to all persons in Pakistan that is to say all citizens of Pakistan and persons who are or have been in the service of Pakistan wherever they may be including areas which are part of Federally and Provincially Administered Tribal Areas.
17. ' So far the maintainability of these Constitutional Petitions is concerned we may observe here that when a person/citizen finds no forum to get this grievance redressed, the only way open for him is to invoke constitutional jurisdiction of this court and the same could be exercised sparingly and judiciously.
18. ' In view of what has been discussed above, we allow all above three constitutional petitions, set aside the order dated 31-7-2006, passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge Karachi East, and maintain the order dated 25-5-2006, passed by learned XIIth Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Karachi East.