' SYED MUSADDIQ HUSSAIN GILLANI, J.---Petitioner Dawar Khan filed instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, against the respondents, NAB etc. Seeking transfer of two references against him pending in the Courts No,III A and IV, Peshawar, to one Court, with the directions for framing one charge and trial of all the offences together. The petitioner pleaded that respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed Reference No,22 of 2005 against him in the Court of respondent No,3 on the allegation of misappropriation of Rs,54,24,809 on the charges of issuance of bogus money order, less generalization of money orders and collection of utility bills of WAPDA etc. Respondent No,3, after framing charge, examined 13 witnesses, and during trial of the petitioner, respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed another Reference No,1 of 2007 against the petitioner qua misappropriation of WAPDA utility bills of Rs,4,84,328. The offence in both the references were of the same kind, and allegedly committed during the same period. Therefore, two trials of the petitioner were unlawful.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner stressed that submitting separate challans for the same kind of offences was wrong and in contravention of section 17(d) of the NAB Ordinance. He prayed that the references pending in the court of respondents Nos.3 and 4 be transferred to one Court for joint charge and trial.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents controverted that the petitioner was being tried for different offences in two separate references filed against him. The trial of the petitioner was in progress in first reference, when misappropriation of an amount of Rs,4,84,328 was discovered against the petitioner, regarding which separate reference was filed, and without prejudice to the rights of the parties, the trials for different offences were being conducted in two Courts.
4. Admittedly, the entire evidence has been completed in both the references, and only the Investigating Officer is yet to be examined. The attested copies of charge sheets are available on the file. In the first reference, petitioner was charged specifically for fraudulent embezzlement, and misappropriation of amounts of Rs,54,24,809 while in the second reference he was charged for misappropriation of Rs,4,84,328 meaning thereby that no illegality or irregularity was committed in this regard, justifying the transfer of c references to one Court for fresh joint trial. Moreover, the provisions of section 17(d) of the Ordinance are, permissive and not mandatory. However, for the convenience of the parties, and to avoid conflicting decisions. When most of the witnesses in both the references are common, we deem it proper to transfer the reference pending in the Accountability Court-II to the Accountability Court-I, Peshawar. Both courts, where references are presently pending, be informed accordingly. The instant petition is disposed of in the at terms.