1. ' BIN YAMIN, J.--- This order will dispose of application made on behalf of the applicant/accused, Hussain Haqqani son of Muhammad Saleem Haqqani under section 561-A read with sections 435 and 439, Cr.P.C. The applicant/accused is involved in case F.I.R. No,4 of 1999 registered on 5-5-1999, under section 409, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Act-II, 1947.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that applicant/accused remained the Chairman/Managing Director of House Building Finance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Corporation) w.e,f, 2-7-1995 to 5-11- 1996. It is alleged that during that period in September, 1996, applicant/accused in his capacity of Chairman/Managing Director of the Corporation, invested Rs,10 million without competency, with ulterior motives in Asset Investment Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) which did not have sound position in the financial market. The amount of Rs,10 million was released under the personal order of the applicant/accused for one year at the rate of 15% interest per annum. It is further alleged that in the office note, the amount for investment was proposed at Rs,5 million but applicant/accused by using his authority raised the same to Rs,10 -million. That the bank was required to return the principal amount as well as interest in September, 1997 but the said bank has repaid only Rs,6.1 million upto that date and the remaining amount is still outstanding. That the applicant with collaboration of the management of the Assets Investment Bank by corrupt, dishonest and illegal means and in abuse of position as holder of Public Office, fraudulently misappropriated the Government amount under his control, thereby causing financial loss to the Government to the tune of more than Rs,6 million, committed offence of corruption and corrupt practices punishable under section 4 of the Ehtesab Act, 1997 read with section 409, and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
3. ' After registration of the case, it was investigated and on completion of the investigation, challan against applicant/accused was submitted in the Court of Special Judge (Central) II, Karachi' on 23-5-2001. Formal charge, Exh.2 against applicant/accused Hussain Haqqani was framed by the learned trial Court on 23-6-2001, to which he pleaded not guilty.
4. ' Prosecution in support of its case examined P.W. Muhammad Dawood, the complainant as Exh.4.
5. P.W. Imtiaz Haimat as Exh.7, P.W. Bilqees Fatima as Exh.26 and Mustafa Kamal as Exh.27.
6. ' During the pendency of the case, an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Was moved on 8-3- 2002 on behalf of the applicant/accused with the request that he may be acquitted from the charge of this case, as charge is groundless and there is no possibility of the accused of being convicted of any offence.
7. ' After hearing the learned counsel for applicant/accused and the prosecutor, the learned trial Judge dismissed the said application moved under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Vide his order, dated 6- 4-2002.
8. ' Feeling aggrieved with the afore-noted order of the learned trial Court, dated 6-4-2002, instant application for quashment of the proceedings, with the following prayer is filed in this case:--
(A) Allow the application.
(B) Set aside the order dated 6-4-2002 passed by the learned Special Judge (Central) II, Karachi in Case No,G.R.10 of 1999, State v. Hussain Haqqani (F.I.R. No,4 of 1999).
(C) Acquit the applicant Hussain Haqqani.
(D) Pass any other order deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
9. ' Heard Advocate for applicant/accused, D.A.-G. For prosecution and perused case papers.
10. Learned counsel for applicant/accused submitted that there is a long delay of more than three years in lodging of the F.I.R. That no explanation for this long delay has been furnished on the record, therefore, this fact clearly shows that the F.I.R. was lodged against the accused after due deliberation and consultation. That this simple fact by itself is sufficient to establish that case of prosecution against the accused is false. He further submitted that the applicant/accused has been victimized by lodging this false case against him because of his differences with the Government of that time. In this respect, he submitted that complainant, Muhammad Dawood, Exh.4 has admitted in his cross-examination that he filed the complaint, Exh.5 at the time when he was not in the Investment Department during that period. He also admitted that prior to the lodging of the F.I.R. Applicant/accused Hussain Haqqani was arrested. That the witness has further admitted that he had filed this case against the applicant/accused on the direction of the Chairman, namely Siddiq-ul-Farooq of House Building Finance Corporation. That the complainant has also admitted that he see photocopy of one note sheet dated 7-5-1999 and further state that it bears his signature. He also admitted that there is a note on the letter dated 7-5-1999 which reads as under:--- "As per instructions we were called by Inspector-General of Police Sindh for preparation of complaint against Mr. Hussain Haqqani."
11. That the case under consideration against the applicant/accused was prepared with active collaboration of the then I.-G. Police, Sindh. That the complainant has further clearly admitted that the M.D. Is empowered to invest the amount upto Rs,10 million under the rules. The witness has further admitted that he does not know that the entire investment was approved by the Board of Directors as he did not belong to the Finance Department. He also admitted that he has no knowledge that State Bank of Pakistan had raised any objection with regard to the investment made by the applicant/accused. That the witness has lastly also admitted that whatever he had done in this case, he had done under the instructions of M.D. Siddiq-ul-Farooq, who was party man of Nawaz Sharif.
12. That the witness Imtiaz Haimat examined as Exh.7 in his cross-examination, has admitted that the whole amount of Rs,10 million invested by the applicant/accused in the Investment Bank was received back by the Corporation. That the interest amount is still outstanding against the Investment Bank.
13. ' That P.W. Bilquees Fatima examined as Exh.26 in her cross-examination, has admitted that after leaving the Corporation by the applicant/accused, the matter of investment of Rs,10 million by the applicant/accused was placed before Board of Directors but there was no objection from the side of the Directors with regard to this investment. That she has also admitted that applicant/accused was arrested during the regime of Nawaz Sharif. He also admitted that applicant/accused had resigned from the post of Managing Director, when the Peoples Party was not in power. That this witness has also admitted that this is a politically motivated case against the accused.
14. P.W. Mustafa Kamal Exh.27 has admitted that he retired from the service on 6-2-2001 and entire amount invested by the applicant/accused in Investment Bank was received back by the Corporation. This witness further admitted that during his tenure he has not seen any letter or circular of State Bank of Pakistan regarding financial unsoundness of Assets of Investment Bank.
15. This witness also admitted that he never come to. Know that accused Hussain Haqqani had any interest in Assets of Investment Bank. That this witness has also admitted that applicant/accused exercised his discretion of investing the amount in good faith. He also admitted that investment made by the applicant/accused was approved by the Board of Directors.
16. ' The learned counsel for the applicant/accused further contended that the material witnesses of the prosecution have been examined and they have not deposed against the accused as alleged by the prosecution, therefore, further keeping this case pending against the accused/applicant will not serve any interest of the justice, on the contrary it will amount to abuse of the process of law.
17. He, therefore, requested for grant of instant application and quashment of proceedings initiated in F.I.R. No,4 of 1999 and case No,G.R.10 of 1999, pending before the learned trial Court.
18. Learned D.A.-G. Has not seriously disputed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused. He has also not disputed the admission made by the prosecution witnesses in their cross-examination and referred to by the learned counsel for applicant/accused. He lastly submitted that this case may be decided on the basis of material available on the record.
19. ' I have considered the contentions raised at bar and have also perused the case papers.
20. The contentions of the learned counsel regarding delay in lodging of the F.I.R. And the fact that the applicant/accused has been victimized because of his political differences with the regime, when this case registered, finds full support from the material available on the record. In my humble opinion, this is a fit case for quashment. I, therefore, allow this application and quash the proceedings started against the applicant/accused on the basis of F.I.R. No,4 of 1999 and the case No,G.R.10 of 1999 pending in the Court of Senior Special Judge (Central) II, Karachi, and acquit the applicant/accused from the charge of this case. The bail bond executed by the applicant/accused, if any stands cancelled and his surety stands discharged.