' HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.---Brief facts leading to this appeal are that Trade Development Authority of Pakistan filed a complaint against Mst. Parveen Akhtar, respondent No,2 for the alleged violation of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1950, whereby she managed to illegally retain the export proceeds amounting to US $ 77,83,150.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case was practically initiated on the complaint of the appellant, who is the actual aggrieved party and who in the course of its business exported consignments of Tractors and Parts valuing US$ 77,83,150 to a Nigerian Firm by the name of Messrs Rexparts International and the accused respondent No,2 namely Mst. Parveen Akhtar was in total control of the said Firm, who illegally retained huge amount of foreign exchange, resulting into filing a complaint by the Trade Development Authority of Pakistan before the Presiding Officer of the learned Commercial Court Punjab. The said Court acquitted respondent No,2 namely Mst.
Parveen Akhtar under section 249-A Cr.P.C. On wrong presumption, particularly kept aside that there was no application for acquittal under section 249-A Cr.P.C. Further submits that the learned Commercial Court while acquitting respondent No,2, did not advert to the most important aspect of the matter that the prosecutor was not appointed, the complainant was not heard, resulting into serious miscarriage of justice.
3. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents No,2 submits that the appeal is time- barred and there is no application for the condonation of delay, the appellant has no locus standi to file the present appeal. Further submits that the complaint could only be filed against the exporter, whereas his client i,e, respondent No,2 was not exporter. Further submits that the proceedings against respondent No,2 is only due to family rivalry, respondent No,2 is a widow of complainant's brother, who is actually playing fraud and intending to grab the entire amount of the deceased, depriving the respondent No,2, from her lawful right of share.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No,3 as well as the learned Deputy Attorney-General also assisted the Court.
5. In rebuttal the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal is within time, there is no question of delay and the most important factor of not appointing any prosecutor in the learned Commercial Court for prosecuting the case is a sufficient ground for the quashment of impugned order.
6. Resultantly the impugned judgment passed by the learned Commercial Court is set aside, the appeal is accepted, the case is remanded to the learned Commercial Court with a direction to record the evidence of all concerns and then decide the case on its own merits within a period of three months, the result whereof be conveyed to the Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court
7. The law relevant to the impugned proceedings de reveals that without the presence/appointment of Prosecutor, case could not be proceeded by the learned Commercial Court and in the circumstances of the case when the matter could only be resolved by recording evidence of parties and that too after granting an opportunity to advance the case by the complainant, the learned Commercial Court could not pass an order under section 249-A Cr.P.C for acquitting the respondent No,2, particularly when there allegation that even the application under section 249-A Cr was not filed by respondent No,2 in the trial Court.
7. After hearing the parties and perusal of the record I am of the view that the learned Commercial Court decided matter in haste, did not advert to the provisions of rendering the impugned judgment a nullity.