ABDUL MOBEEN LAKHO, J.---The instant Criminal Revision Application is directed against the order dated 22- 04-2017 passed by the learned Special Judge [Offences in Banks] Sindh, at Karachi, in Case _No. 07 of 2017; whereby an application moved by the appellants under section 249-A, Cr .P.C. was dismissed.
2. The precise facts forming the background of the captioned Cr .Rev. are that:- "Complainant Muhammad Aijaz filed complaint before the FIA stating therein that he had started small business of supply eggs and for that purpose he approached the commercial Habib Bank for opening of his account for running the affairs of his business. He further stated in the complaint that previously he used to work with the accused Muhammad Jameel and had given him his CNIC because he was employer at that time. He doubted that his CNIC has been misused and the account has been opened in his name. On receipt of such complaint enquiry was conducted wherein it revealed that the accused Muhammad Jameel opened A/C No. 00497900043730 titled as Muhammad Aijaz in collusion with Riaz Ahmed the then branch manager HBL Bohra bazar branch [who is now dead] in order to accomplish their criminal objectives as such the FIR was registered."
3. Khawaja Shams-UI-Islam , advocate, representing the applicants contended that the amounts lying in the account of complainant belongs to the applicants and was kept there for outward payment as well as expenses; that the applicants are innocent and the allegations against them are false and fabricated and have been levelled by complainant who had remained their employee only to blackmail them and cause a colossal loss to their business; that the trial court has wrongly concluded that the case requires evidence, that the complainant had opened the account in the bank with full knowledge and in presence of Riaz Ahmed, Operation Manager , HBL, Bohra Bazar branch who expired on 09.08.2014; hence no evidence is available with the prosecution with regard to the ingredients of sections 409, 468 and 471, P.P.C.; that no loss has been caused to the public exchequer or to the Bank; that the allegation of tax evasion are baseless and if it is a case of tax evasion the jurisdiction does not vest with the Special Court (Offence in Banks); that trial court has wrongly come to the conclusion that the accounts are still in operation by the applicants; that trial court failed to peruse the statement of accounts as well as Customs SROs and other documents, reflecting that the account was being operated by the complainant himself, and he had issued numerous cheques to a number of people when he was posted as manager warehouse; that almost all the funds have been transferred from the above account; the sole reason of transferring the amount by applicants in the account of the complainant was to avoid paying Bhatta which was then prevalent in the city; that none of the witnesses in their statements have alleg ed any direct allegation against the applicants, that prosecution of the applicants in the present case is nothing but misuse of the process of law. Lastly learned counsel for the applicants/accused prayed that the order of the learned trial court may be set aside and the application moved under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. be allowed. Besides, he referred to a number of documents in support of his contentions and relied upon the case law reported as PLD 2016 SC 55 , 2019 MLD 1 139 and 2018 SCMR 1857 .
4. Mr. Qamar Iqbal, advocate, representing the complainant and Mr. Muhammad Adnan, DAG, argued that the learned trial court has rightly dismissed the application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C.; that there is sufficient material available with the prosecution in the shape of statements of prosecution witnesses, documents and other material the offence so committed by the applicants/accused requires evidence. There is/was relationship of master and servant in between complainant and the applicants/accused; per learned counsel the complainant was ex-manager of the Firm of the applicant/accused and his CNIC was misused by the applicants for open ing the bank account without his knowledge; that there is documentary material on the record which requires recording of evidence and determination by the learned trial court; there is no error of law apparent on the face of impugned order; the trial of the case is at preliminary stage. That it is also apparent on the record that applicants/accused are still maintaining the account in the name of Mohammad Aijaz and no explanation has been brough t on record by them to show as to why and under whose instructions transaction in the said bank account are still continuing. Lastly learned counsel prayed that the interim challan was presented on the basis of tentative assessment and now the final challan has been submitted therefore the present Cr .Rev. is liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the applicants / accused; learned counsel for the 'complainant and learned Deputy Attorney General. It is noted that the learned Trial Judge while dismissing the appli cation under section 249-A in its judgment has observed that "The interim challan has been presented on the basis of tentative assessment of investigation and still investigation is going on and at this premature stage of case when investigation of the case has not been completed, therefore, the application under section 249-A, Cr .P.C. could not be allowed".
6. The above finding have been challenged by way of this Criminal Revision application, however , during the pendency of the present Application, the I.O. has submitted the final challan on 18.12.2019 referring the applicants for trial. But in respect of complaint, following observations have been made:- The contention of Ejaz is highly contradictory in the light of statements of PWs Muhammad Rehan Raza (Manager UBL Model Colony Br.). Muhammad Haneef, Farrukh Rasheed, Altaf Hussain (Poultry Farmers) that he was not aware of account No.00497900043703 titled Muhammad Ejaz as he himself deposited a cheque No. 4283237 dated 08.09.2012 of above account in his personal account which he is maintaining at UBL Model Colony Branch Karachi and later withdrawn the amount. Besides, poultry farmers also received cheques through Ejaz of said HBL account.
7. The opening of subject bank account in the name of the complainant has not been disputed by the applicants.
Their version is that it was opened with consent of complainant in order to avoid payment of Bhatta to unscrupulous elements, which contention however has been disputed by the complainant, and further no material in support thereof A has been prima facie collected in the investigations. So there is a version of the applicants purely factual in nature which has been controverted by the other side. Before us, there is no substance to appreciate this factual dispute in favour of either party for which admittedly evidence is required. Besides Mr. Shams-ul-Islam, Advocate for the accused while arguing the case placed heavy reliance on a set of documents filed by him vide a statement dated 15.11.2019. The record reveals that neither such documents were in possession of the prosecution nor were these documents filed along with 249-A, Cr.P.C. application before the trial court to appreciate them first.
Hence virtually there is no word of the trial court in regard to the merits of the case of applicants in the backdrop of such documents. Moreso, before the trial court since the documents were not placed, the prosecution did not have any opportunity to rebut the same.
8. The scope of Revisional jurisdiction is limited to correctness, legality , regularity or propriety of the proceedings of the courts below rather than a full-fledged reappraisal of the evidence. It will be beyond such scope to directly consider the documents filed by the learned counsel without them first being placed and considered by the Trial Court. In the case in hand, the trial court could not undertake an exhaustive analy sis of the material as the above relied documents were not filed and only the interim challan was submitted. However , now the final challan has been submitted in the case and the trial is ripe for commencement.
In the above circumstances, we dismiss this Criminal Revision Application. Howe ver, since the documents relied upon by the applicants were not quoted before the trial court and meanwhile the final challan has been submitted, the applicant would be at liberty to repea t such an application before the trial court for the appreciation afresh, if I so advised.