' This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner who is facing trial in a reference in Accountability Court No,III, Lahore, under section 10(a) read with section 9(a) clauses (iii) (iv) (ix) (x) and (xii) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and the schedule thereto for the commission of offences of corruption and corrupt practices being the Chief Executive of a private limited company known as Bulls and Bears (Pvt.) Limited and the allegation against the petitioner and co-accused is that they conducted illegal banking by inviting public at large to deposit money with them in the above-said company by falsely promising huge profits and indulged in future trading of commodities, currencies and in this manner misappropriated ati amount of Rs,1294 million from general public and obtained illegal pecuniary advantage.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for bail to the petitioner on the ground that petitioner was a stock broker and under the law, was authorized to do the business; whereas under the National Accountability Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as "NAO") unauthorized and illegal banking is not an offence. Learned counsel submitted that the National Accountability Bureau (hereinafter referred to as "NAB") first filed an interim reference against the petitioner and his company/co-accused and then subsequently filed a supplementary reference. He submitted with reference to the allegations made in paras.4 and 5 of the interim reference that the company of the petitioner was conducting banking business and submitted that it did not fall within the mischief of NAB. He also submitted that the prosecution in para.16 of said reference has alleged that the petitioner had involved himself in the commission of offence of cheating as defined in section 415, P.P.C. And dishonestly induced members of public at large to deliver and deposit their money with the petitioner's company whereas at the same time the allegation is that the petitioner also committed criminal breach of trust with regard to the money entrusted to them by the public at large. He therefore, submitted that offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust are self- destructive and cannot co-exist and in this regard learned counsel placed reliance on Emperor v.
John Mclver (AIR 1936 Mad.. 353). The learned counsel thus submitted that the charge framed against the petitioner also suffers from patent illegality and submitted that petitioner is in jail for the last four years whereas the conclusion of the trial is not in sight in which only a few formal witnesses have been recorded as yet and there are over 900 prosecution witnesses in the calendar with reference. Therefore, submitted that petitioner is rotting in jail unnecessarily while there is no probability of the conviction of the petitioner, therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail pending the trial.
3. Learned Special Prosecutor of NAB has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that Rs,1294 million are involved in the illegal transactions carried out by the petitioner and his company in connivance and collaboration with co-accused and in this way they not only cheated the public at large but also obtained illegal pecuniary gains to themselves. He submitted that even if it be assumed for the sake of argument, though not conceded, that unauthorized and illegal banking is not an offence in the NAO Ordinance, 1999, he submitted that cheating and misappropriation of the amounts of the public for illegal pecuniary gains is very much available on record against the petitioner. Learned Special Prosecutor submitted that a direction has already been given by this Court to the learned Accountability Court No,III/trial Court that the trial should be completed within six months vide order, dated 18-9-2007, therefore, submitted that said period has not expired as yet and submitted that the learned counsel for the petitioner and co-accused did not appear regularly before the learned trial Court and in this way impede the course of smooth trial and submitted that out 1210 P.Ws. The prosecution intends to produce 50 or 60 P.Ws. Only. At, present statements of nine or ten P.Ws. Have been recorded (examination-in-chief) while due to nonappearance of the learned defence counsel before the learned trial Court, the cross-examination on the statements of the said P.Ws. Is in abeyance. He submitted that since the conduct of the petitioner is contumacious who is not producing the learned defence counsel before the trial Court, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail as he is causing delay in the conclusion of the trial within the stipulated period as fixed by this Court. He submitted that the petitioner and the co-accused have misappropriated very huge amount of 1294 million, therefore, he is not entitled to bail.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Special Prosecutor representing NAB and have perused the record.
5. The petitioner is named in the reference specifically for committing of offence falling within the ambit of section 10(a) read with section 9(a) clauses (iii) (iv) (ix) (x) and (xii) of NAO Ordinance, 1999 and the schedule thereto. A very huge amount of Rs,1294 millions is involved in the reference against the petitioner. The petitioner can better explain his position of stockbroker as it is only the trial. Court who can dilate upon the position of stockbroker after due trial and it is not appropriate for us to express any opinion on the authority of the stockbroker and its scope. A direction had already been issued by us for expeditious disposal of the trial within six months vide order, dated 18-9-2007 passed in Writ Petition No,12380 of 2006. The said stipulated period has not exhausted as yet. In any event, as we have noticed that the pace of the progress of the trial is quite slow and the prosecution has alleged that despite the fact that examination-in-chief of various P.Ws. Have been recorded but the witnesses are not cross-examined by the defence counsel representing the petitioner for one reason or the other. It would be in the interest of the petitioner to cooperate with the learned trial Court for expeditious disposal of the trial. All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner would be better appreciated after due trial by the learned trial Court. We do not feel it appropriate at this stage when the trial has commenced to express any opinion on the vires of the reference lest it prejudices the case of either of the parties.
6. No ground for allowing this petition is made out in terms of bail to the petitioner. We may also mention that the case-law supra referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot extend any benefit to the petitioner at this stage and would be a valid consideration after due trial as the said principle was also held by the Honourable Madras High Court in an appeal against conviction.
This writ petition is without merits and is dismissed.