1. NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.--This Constitutional petition has been filed challenging the judgment of the learned Special Court (Offences in Banks) at Karachi acquitting the respondent No.l accused. The judgment of the Special Court is challenged by this Constitutional petition. When this matter came up before us on 23-9-1986, a question arose about the maintainability of the present constitutional petition, and, for assistance, we directed, issuance of notice to the learned Advocate-General, Sind as also to the learned Dy. Attorney-General for Pakistan. Pursuant to the notice, learned Additional Advocate General', Sind and Mr. S.M. Noorul Hassan, Advocate, for the Deputy Attorney- General for Pakistan have appeared.
2. It has been submitted by Mr. Sharaf Faridi, learned counsel for the petitioner that on a perusal of sections 10 and 12 of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance No. IX of 1984, it follows that appeal lies to the High Court only against an order of conviction and no acquittal appeal lies either to the High Court or any other Court and that even a Revision does not lie to the High Court against the order of acquittal passed by the Special Court. Learned' counsel for the petitioner specifically referred to the word "notwithstanding the provisions of the Court or of any other law for the time being in force or of anything having the force of law by whatsoever authority made or done no Court shall have any jurisdiction of any kind in respect of any proceedings of a Special Court."
3. Learned counsel has also referred to the meaning of the word "proceedings" in Ballentine's Law Dictionary, Third Edition, at page 1000.
4. Mr. S.M. Noorul Hassan, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan has also argued that apparently the provisions of sections 10 and 12 of Ordinance, 1984 bar the remedy of appeal as well as Revision against an order of acquittal passed by the Special Court and that in the circumstances perhaps the only remedy available to the complainant is by way of Constitutional petition. Mr. S.M. Noorul Hassan also referred to PLD 1966 SC 639; PLD 1958 SC (Ind.)
5. 274; (1956) A C 14; (1957) 1 Q B 574 and (1954) 2 Q B 44.
6. Mr. Abdul Sattar Sheikh, Additional Advocate-General, Sind has submitted that the question whether a Revision lies or not in this case requires consideration. All the three learned counsel appearing before us today have also submitted that on this question under this law there is no judgment of any superior Court of Pakistan.
7. The question whether' a Revision lies or not and as such a Constitutional petition is maintainable requires consideration.
8. On merits it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of evidence and the statement of respondent No.l/ accused, an order of acquittal could not have been passed.
9. The contentions require consideration. Admit. Notice.