' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.---This appeal by leave of this Court is directed against the judgment dated 2-11-2005 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, whereby Criminal Revision No,30 of 2004 filed by appellant was partly accepted to the extent of framing of charge afresh after going through the record whereas it was dismissed as regards the question of sanction.
2. In original complaint 25 persons were arrayed as accused, cognizance was taken against 16 accused by learned. District and Sessions Judge, Karachi South. Out of them appellant and twelve others are facing trial whereas three have been shown as absconder.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas), Limited, (hereinafter referred to as "BCCI (Overseas) was doing banking business in Cayman Islands since February, 1979. On 5th July, 1991 the Governor of Cayman Islands appointed receiver for BCCI (Overseas) because of was carrying on business detrimental to the public interest and would not be able to meet its obligations to the creditors due to dwindling financial position.
On 27-7-1991 he also revoked the banking license of BCCI (Overseas). The liquidation proceedings seeking winding up of BCCI (Overseas) were filed in the Grand Court of Cayman Islands and the Court appointed provisional liquidator. On 14-1-1992 the Court ordered compulsory winding up of BCCI (Overseas) and for branches of BCCI S.A. At UK liquidators were appointed in the Cayman Island and England. As a result of these proceedings the entire BCCI ground became subject to winding up and liquidators were appointed for different companies of the group who after inquiry found that great irregularities have been committed in transferring funds from BCCI Group to Gulf Group of Gokals by way of various transaction of different type of loans worth millions of dollars in favour of Gokal companies. After completing the investigation, the liquidators authorized respondent Syed Ali Kazim to initiate criminal proceedings against all the persons involved in the crime. He filed complaint before District and Sessions Judge, Karachi South nominating 25 accused giving details of the fraudulent transactions and the persons involved in them.
4. After preliminary inquiry the complaint under sections 231/468/471, read with section 120-B, P.P.C.
Was brought on regular file against 16 persons vide order dated 29-9-1996.
5. On 7-2-2004 charge was framed by the learned First Additional sessions Judge, Karachi, against twelve accused to which they pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, appellant along with other accused challenged the same by filing four criminal revisions under sections 435, 436, 439 and 561-A, Cr.P.C.
Before learned High Court of Sindh, Karachi for quashment of the proceedings. The Criminal Revision No,30 of 2004 filed by appellant was partly accepted in respect of the charge and dismissed qua question of sanction vide impugned order.
6. On 5-4-2006, leave to appeal was granted by this Court to consider as to whether at the time of filing of complaint, sanction from government has been obtained as required under section 188, Cr.P.C. Which is mandatory in nature and that cognizance has been taken under section 120, P.P.C.
Which provision of law is also hit by section 196-A, Cr.P.C. Whereby complaint is to be made by order of under the authority from the Central Government or the Provincial Government concerned or some officer empowered in this behalf by either of the two Governments.
7. We have heard Mr. Iqtidar Ali Hashmi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Raza Kazim, learned counsel for respondent No,2 and have gone through the record and the proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that at the time of filing of complaint, sanction from government has not been obtained as required under section 188, Cr.P.C., which is mandatory in nature as the offence allegedly was committed outside Pakistan. He further contended that in this matter cognizance has been taken under section 120, P.P.C. Which provision of law is also hit by provisions of section 196-A, Cr.P.C. Whereby complaint is to be made by order or under the authority from the Central Government or the Provincial Government concerned or some officer empowered in this behalf by either of the two Governments. As such formal charge could not be framed against the appellant and co-accused in absence of sanction.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No,2 controverted the above contentions and supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that learned High Court has elaborately discussed each and every aspect of the matter and there is no material warranting interference by this Court.
10. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, as well as the relevant provisions of law relating to the facts and circumstances of the case. The case has a chequered history and has been dealt with by the trial Court on many occasions. The above mentioned application filed on the ground that sanction as required under section 188,Cr.P.C. Was not obtained prior to the filing of complaint was dismissed. In this respect it would be appropriate to refer to the order dated 15-9-2003 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Karachi South wherein it has been explicitly mentioned that sanction was obtained from the Ministry of Interior, the competent authority. The concluding paragraph of the said order is reproduced as under:--- "I have heard complainant Mr. S. Ali Kazim, Advocate and gone through the file. On 20-8-2002 previously also application dated 8-12-1996 was filed by accused Mustafa Gokal and others challenging the trial of the present complaint on the ground that there was no sanction under section 188, Cr.P.C. But the said application was dismissed after hearing the Advocates vide order dated 20-8-2002 and vide order dated 10-9-2002 case was adjourned for framing the charge.
Same pleas were taken in the previous applications, which were dismissed by the Court and the above said orders have not been challenged by the accused persons in appeal before any forum till today. The present application appears to be review application reviewing the orders of this Court passed on 20-8-2002 and 10-9-2002.Even otherwise I have gone through the original sanction order under section 188, Cr.P.C. Sent by Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan, which was received by this Court through post and it bears the signature of my learned predecessor (Mr. Zakir Hussain K. Mirza) dated 19-12-1996. According to this sanction order the sanction has been granted against 25 accused persons. I am not convinced that this sanction order is forged one. The present application has got no force which is accordingly dismissed."
From the perusal of the above order it is clear that sanction was obtained by the complainant prior to the filing of the complaint and several frivolous applications moved, were dismissed by the trial Court. The learned High Court has discussed each and every aspect of the matter in detail and as rightly dismissed the revision to the extent of grant of sanction which was accorded on 17-12-1996 by Ministry of Interior for prosecution. As regards charge also the learned High Court has rightly directed the trial Court to frame the charge according to law keeping into consideration the provisions of sections 221 and 222, Cr.P.C.
11. Above are the reasons of our short order dated 18-5-2006 whereby we had dismissed the appeal However, the trial Court was directed to proceed with the case on day to day basis and dispose of the same as far as possible within a period of 90 days without granting unnecessary adjournments except in very unavoidable circumstances.