' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, C.J.--- This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment dated 25-11-2004 passed by the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, whereby the C.P. No1 D-1176 of 2004 filed by the petitioner was disposed of
2. Precisely facts of the case are that the appellant former Deputy Director of F.I.A., was arrested on 16-10-1999 cm the allegation that he acquired property disproportionate to his lawful source of income. He was sent up to face trial before the Accountability Court and was convicted and sentenced to 14 years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,ten crores or in default to suffer further R.I. For seven years. On appeal learned Sindh High Court, remanded the matter to the trial Court. Whereafter trial Court directed that the case of three accused including the appellant be tried separately, which order was amended on the application of Special prosecutor and joint trial was ordered to proceed. The appellant assailed the said order before the High Court but later prayed for withdrawal of the petition. The learned High Court, while rejecting the withdrawal of the petitioner ordered for joint trial of all the accused including the appellant. The appellant filed C.P.L.A. Before this Court in which leave to appeal was granted and the matter was stayed till the decision of the appeal.
3. During pendency of appeal, the appellant has filed instant C.M.A. No,2175 of 2008 with the prayer that his case is covered under section 7 of the N.R.O. 2007, therefore, he be acquitted.
4. We have heard Mr. Wasim Sajjad, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court, for the appellant and Mr. F.M. Javed, Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of respondent No,3 and Mukhtar Ahmad co- accused, in person at length.
5. Mr. Wasim Sajjad, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court contended that inquiry in the instant matter was started on 29-12-1996 with a Source Report about Zarak Textiles, in which the appellant's share was 5%. The inquiry continued by the F.I.A. And then by Ehtesab Commissioner and after investigation was final, the case was sent up before the Accountability Court for trial.
According to him the case of the appellant is fully covered by' section 7 of the N.R.O., 2007 as according to 'him proceedings under investigation includes inquiry. Inquiry is' referred to section 5(a) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, whereby "accused" shall include a person in respect of whom there are, reasonable grounds to believe that he is or has been involved in the commission of any offence triable under this Ordinance or is subject of an investigation or inquiry by the National Accountability Bureau or any other agency authorized by the National Accountability Bureau in this regard under this Ordinance. He has placed reliance upon short order, dated 14-3-2008 passed by this Court in the case of Ahmad Riaz Sheikh and others v. The State Criminal Miscellaneous No,62 of 2008 in Criminal Petition No,349 of 2005).
6. On the other hand Dr. M. Asghar Rana, learned A.D.P.-G. NAB opposed the above contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and supported impugned judgment.
7. Since the case is pending before the trial Court as such it would be appropriate that the appellant may prefer application under section 7 of the NRO before the said Court, which if preferred, be disposed of within one week's time on merits. In view of the above observation C.M.A.
No,2175 of 2008 and Civil Appeal No,1224 of 2007 are disposed of.