MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---Since both these Cr. Revisions involves same question of law and facts, therefore, these are being disposed of by means of this single judgment.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the instant revision petitions are that the petitioners were booked under section 18(g) read with section 24(B) of National Accountability Ordinance-1999 as amended in 2000. Initially reference No,107/2004 and reference No,108/2004 were filed before the Accountability Court Rawalpindi which remained sub judice till 2007 and later on both these references were transferred to Accountability Court Gilgit-Baltistan.
3. The petitioners filed a petition before the trial Court under section 265-K, Cr.P.C., mainly on the grounds that investigation of both cases have been conducted in utter violation of law and the reference has been filed in contravention of section 173, Cr.P.C., which is an illegal act and the petitioners be acquitted from the charges applying the codal provisions of law.
4. The learned trial Court dismissed the petition vide order dated 06.10.2016. The learned trial Judge handed down two different judgments in both the cases but the reasons which persuaded the learned trial Judge to tilt in favour of prosecution are almost all same in pith and substance. Being aggrieved of the above orders the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the instant revision petitions.
5. Both the learned counsels were heard at length and the main contentions of the counsel were that the investigation of the case has been conducted illegally and trial would be a futile exercise as this Court in a case of Daulat Ali v. The State has acquitted the accused on the same parameters and premises, which are also available to the petitioners. Per learned counsel the ultimate result of trial would be acquittal and in such circumstances section 265-K, Cr.P.C., should be invoked for relieving the petitioners from the rigorous and agonies of long and protracted trial.
6. We have heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned judgment of the trial Court.
Section 265-K, Cr.P.C., was an exception to the general rule relating to the trial under the code but a big rider was attached to 'exercise such discretion firstly that a fair chance of hearing was to be provided to both the parties and secondly, the Court should come to a definite conclusion that on the available material there was no possibility or probability of conviction of accused for any offence. Recording of evidence was not the requirement of law but at the same time, the said section was not to be pressed into service to stifle the prosecution case at the infancy stage. The legal and factual controversies involved in the case could not be resolved in summary proceedings under scope of Revision Petition.
7. With regard to the contention of the accused that there is no material on record against the accused and question of conviction does not arise is the question which could be raised and rebutted by both the parties in the trial Court. However, since the trial is lingering on since 2007, therefore, we direct the trial Court to proceed with the trial on priority basis and conclude the same within three months.
8. With the above observation, both the above titled revision petitions are hereby dismissed in limine.