1. ' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.--In this appeal is challenged judgment dated 30th April, 1988 of learned Presiding Officer, Special Court (Offences in Banks) at Karachi, whereby appellant is convicted under section 420 P.P.C. And sentenced to R..I. For 12 months and a fine of Rs,50,000 or in default R.I.
2. For six months. Initially appellant was put on trial alongwith two other co-accused namely Khawar Neemrose and Khair Muhammad Baloch for offences under sections 420, 468, 471, 409/34,P.P.C.
3. Read with section 5(2) of Act II of 1947 but subsequently after trial, by the impugned judgment, co- accused have been acquitted and appellant is convicted and sentenced as stated above.
4. ' Briefly stated the relevant facts, giving rise to this appeal, are that at the relevant time in December, 1980 acquitted co-accused Khawar Neemrose was Incharge C.D. And S.E. Accounts and Khair Muhammad Baloch was Assistant in Habib Bank, Rangiwara Branch, Karachi. Appellant Imam Bux did not work in the Bank and was outsider. In the said Branch a fraud of Rs,301,000 was discovered to have been committed. A cheque of Rs,1,37,000 deposited in Account No,FB-6391 drawn on Habib Bank, Bhimpura Branch was sent in for transfer delivery for collection, which was stolen and credit proceeds were found to have been withdrawn by various cheques. This account was in the name of Jameel Ahmed with introduction of Anwar Hussain (S.B. Account No,2780 at Bhimpura Branch). In the second instance, cheque of Rs,1,64,000 of C.D. Account No,1089 was deposited drawn on Lea Market Branch for which transfer delivery was prepared but the cheque was not sent to Lea Market Branch and credit thereof was fraudulently passed in C.D. Account No,1089 and the entire amount was withdrawn. This account was in the name of Muhammad Aslam with introduction of Khawar Neemrose. Both cheques were found to have been stolen. Or destroyed and for fraud, thus, committed employees Khawar Neemrose, Abdul Hamid, Khokhar and Khair Muhammad Baloch were suspected alongwith some outsiders. Such report was lodged by Manager of Bank, Rangiwara Branch on 7-12-1980 with F . I. A .
5. ' During the investigation, documents from the Pank were seized and suspected Bank-employees and appellant were arrested. Charge-sheet was presented in the Court on 22-9-1983, in which Investigating Officer had come to the conclusion that appellant Imam Bux had withdrawn fraudulently a sum of Rs,2,01,800 with the connivance of Abdul Hameed Khokhar, Khawar Neemrose and Khair Muhammad Baloch, who are officers of Habib Bank. Charge was framed against them in the Court of Special Judge (Central), Karachi on 20-12-1983. No progress- was made and subsequently case was transferred to the Special Court (Offences in Banks) at Karachi on 27-8- 1984. On application under section 249-A Cr.P.C. Co-accused Abdul Hamid Khokhar was acquitted on 15-10-1984 and on the same day charge was reframed against remaining three accused for offences under sections 408, 471 and 477-A, P.P.C. Read with section 34 P.P.C. During trial proceedings, prosecution examined 11 witnesses while other 5 were examined as Court witnesses.
6. In all evidence of 16 witnesses was recorded. Statements of accused on trial were recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C. On. 8-12-1986. Charge was further amended on 12-3-1988. Perusal of order sheet dated 12-3-1988 at page 23 of the Paper Book shows that charge had to be reframed for the reason that there was no evidence of entrustment of funds to any of the accused on trial. In the reframed charge offences mentioned are under sections 420, 477-A, read with 109 P.P.C. No evidehce was produced in defence.
7. ' In appeal before us, we have heard Mr. Sohail Muzaffar, counsel for appellant and Mr. Hazratji, counsel for State. On merits appraisement of evidence by the trial Court is assailed on the ground that on the basis of same evidence produced by prosecution two co-accused who are officers of the Bank, have been acquitted, hence there was no justification for convicting the present appellant on the basis of same evidence. Before we go into analysis of evidence, we would like to point out the legal position. Trial Court, whose judgment is impugned in this appeal, is set up under special law, which is called as "Offences in Respect of Banks (Special. Courts) Ordinance, 1984", hereinafter to be referred as the said Ordinance. Section 10 of the said Ordinance provides for appeal to be filed by a person, who is sentenced by the Special Court and there is no further provision in the said Ordinance for filing of acquittal appeal or revision if the prosecution or complainant feel aggrieved against the order of the Special Court passed in respect of acquittal of accused. Keeping in view this legal position as stated above, it appears that while exercising our apppellate jurisdiction as is conferred upon us by the said Ordinance, finding, of 'the trial Court in respect of acquittal cannot be called in question before this forum.
8. ' Now we proceed to examine the evidence, on the basis of which appellant before us has been convicted and sentenced as stated. Above. Perusal of impugned judgment shows that co-accused Khawar Neemrose and ithair Muhammad Baloch, who are officers of the Bank have been acquitted for the reason that evidence produced by the prosecution was insufficient to prove the fact that these two co-accused were involved in the conspiracy with appellant to defraud the Bank. Now so far, appellant Imam Bux is concerned, prosecution case is that he opened Accounts No,1089 and 6391-2 at Rangiwara Branch, Account No,1730 at Lea Market Branch and Account No,2780 at Bhimpura Brahch under false names. It is further alleged that he deposited cheques for 'Rs,1,64,000 and Rs,1,37,000 for transfer delivery, drawn on accounts opened by himself which had no funds and also issued cheque for Rs,36,000 which was drawn on Account No,6391 of Rangiwara Branch.
9. ' P.W.1 Abul Hassan, who was at the relevant time Manager in the Bank at Rangiwara Branch has deposed before the trial Court that in December, 1980, while Khawar Neemrose was not available at his table, he noticed a cheque of Rs,2,74,000 in the drawer of that table. That cheque was for transfer delivery and had returned unpaid. Instead of being posted in the ledger of account holder and returned to him, it was lying in the drawer of Khawar Neemrose. This roused suspicion of Abul Hassan, who informed the Zonal Office and in the result Chaudhry Munir Javed, Zonal Chief came and investigated the matter. During the course of investigation, it was discovered that a cheque of Rs,1,64,000 was received for transfer delivery in C.D. Account No,1089 of Mr. Muhammad Aslam, which was deposited on 4-11-1980 on Lea Market Branch was credited in Account No,1089 without sending the cheque to Lea Market Branch. On further checking of C.D. Account No,1089, a credit entry for a sum of Rs,36,000 by transfer from other account of the same Branch was discovered, which was supposed to have been transferred from S.B. Account No,6391 Of Jameel Ahmed by cheque, which entry did exist for transfer in S.B. Account 6391. However, suspicion was about credit entry in S.B. Account 6391, which was checked and it was found that a credit entry for a sum of Rs,1,37,000 by transfer delivery cheque from Bhimpura Branch was there. Cross checking with Bhimpura Branch indicated that cheque for Rs,1,37,000 credited in S.B. Account No,6391, supposed to have been received from Bhimpura Branch from some saving account was without debit entry in the relative account in Bhimpura Branch. In such circumstances, under the directions of superiors, P.W.1 Abul Hassan lodged a written report on 7th December, 1980 Exh.5-A with F.I.A., Karachi. In this report, it Is mentioned that a cheque of Rs,1,37,000 was deposited in Account No,S.B.6391 on 5-10-1980 drawn on Habib Bank Ltd., Bhimpura Branch, Karachi. This cheque was sent in transfer delivery but it was stolen and credit proceeds had been fraudulently withdrawn. It is further stated in this report that in C.D. Account No,1089 a cheque of Rs,1,64,.000 was deposited on 4-11-1980, which was drawn on Lea Market Branch and transfer delivery was also.Prepared but the cheque was not sent to Lea Market Branch and the credit was fraudulently passed in C.D. Account No,1089 and the entire amount had been fraudulently withdrawn. In the report suspicion is lodged on employees of the Bank namely Khawar Neemrose, Abdul Hameed Khokhar and Khair Muhammad Baloch alongwith some outsiders.
10. ' P.W.1 Abul Hassan further deposed that Police had seized from him a cheque for Rs,2,74,000 dated 22nd November, 1980 which he had taken from the drawer of Khawar Neemrose. Attempt was made to send the cheque to account-holder Muhammad Aslam by registered post but it could not be delivered and was returned by Postal Authorities. Abul Hasan further testified before the trial Court that he did not know appellant Imam Bux personally but had seen him visiting Khawar Neemrose and Khair Muhammad Baloch in the same branch. He further testified that Khawar Neemrose being Incharge of S.B. And C.D. Accounts was responsible to cancel the cheque for payment, receive and pass for payment after verifying the signatures. He was also responsible to ensure that cheques received for clearing were sent to clearing house and or for transfer delivery in case of inter bank cheques. Khair Muhammad as Assistant was responsible for preparation of transfer delivery, writing of daily transfer book, issue of cash token, receiving of cheques from parties deposited in transfer delivery or in clearance and to pass on the same to Khawar Neemrose for his signatures on relative papers and vouchers. Khair Muhammad Baloch was working under the supervision of Khawar Neemrose.
11. ' P.W.1 Abul Hassan further stated in his evidence that Account No,6391 was opened by Jameel Ahmad, who was introduced by Anwar Hussain, who was maintaining an account at Bhimpura Branch of Habib Bank. Current Account No,1089 was opened by Muhammad Aslam on 14-10-1980 who was introduced by Khawar Neemrose who verified signatures on opening form and specimen signature Card. Khawar Neemrose issued Cheque Book bearing Nos.618076 to 618100 to accountholder Muhammad Aslam. In respect of cheque for Rs,1,37,000 in the account of Jameel Ahmad, pay-in-slip was received by Khawar Neemrose alongwith cheque. Summary of collection mentioned in Exh. 5/B-5 shows that pay-in-slip was received by Khawar Neemrose which was posted in ledger in ordinary course and thereafter forwarded to clearing house by Khair Muhammad but cheque for Rs,1,37,000 was never received by Bhimpura Branch. This witness P.W.1 Abul Hasan further stated before the trial Court that on enquiry Khawar Neemrose informed him that account-holder Muhammad Aslam was a big transporter and that he had great potential and was very well-known to him. This account-holder was never seen. Ledger Account No 1089 of Muhammad Aslam indicated from 14-10-1980 to 31-10-1980 four credit entries and a large number of debit entries. The first entry is of Rs,2,0C0 with which account was opened and the last credit entry is of Rs 2,74,000 which is in respect of cheque which was dishonoured and returned and hence debit entry for that amount was made. Remaining two credit entries of Rs, 36,000 and Rs, 1,64,000 pertain to amounts which are alleged to have been misappropriated and in respect of which Khawar Neemrose was put on trial.
12. ' This witness Abul Hassan has further deposed before the trial Court that Account No,6391-2 was opened in the name cf Jameel Ahmad. Jameel Ahmad was introduced by account-holder Anwar Hussain of Bhimpura Branch and this witness had approved the opening of the said account. This witness identified appellant Imam Buy in the Court to be the same person who opened account in the name of Jameel Ahmed. This witness further identified Exh. '5/B-22 to be the deposit slip under which cheque for an amount of Rs,36,000 was deposited for collection and was credited into Account No,1089 and the cheque in question was received by Khawar Neemrose who signed on the deposit slip over the words "received by".
13. ' P.W.1 Abul Hassan has further categorically stated in his evidence before the trial Court that he had been seeing appellant Imam Bux in the Branch after he had opened Account No,6391 and was known to this witness as Jameel Ahmad.
14. ' P.W.1 Abul Hassan during investigation correctly picked out appellant Imam Bux on 30th March, 1980 in the identification parade before a Magistrate.
15. ' In the trial Court when P.W.1 Abul Hassan was in the box and after his examination-in-chief was over, opportunity for cross-examination was offered but was declined and not availed by appellant Imam Bux as is clearly indicated at page 36 of paper book. This witness was then intensively questioned by the Court after which he was cross-examined by the counsel who appeared on behalf of all accused who were on trial. Mr. 1.A. Hashim Advocate appearing for appellant Imam Bux availed this opportunity and asked this witness only one question (page 41 of paper book) whether the witness had. Not seen appellant in the office of F.I.A. Prior to the identification parade and the suggestion was denied by the witness and after that no further question was put to this witness in cross-examination from which inference can be drawn that whatever is said by this witness against the appellant is not challenged or called in question or disputed. Appellant in his 342, Cr.P.C. Statement in the trial Court in connection with identification parade took up the plea that before identification parade held by the Magistrate, one other parade was held in the office of FIA, in which he was shown to the witnesses. Appellant has not disputed having been picked out by witnesses in the parade held under the supervision of the Magistrate. After denial by this witness about prior identification parade in the office of F.I.A., no further effort was made on behalf of appellant to substantiate assertion made that there was prior identification parade in the office of F.I.A. In other words there was no challenge worth the name to the statement of P.W.1 Abul Hassan, who had implicated appellant as stated above.
16. ' P.W.2 Sultan Khail deposed before the trial Court that he was Manager Habib. Bank Ltd., Lea Market Branch in which on 28-10-1980 Account No,1730 was opened by Muhammad Afzal son of Muhammad lqbal. In that connection he produced opening form and specimen signature card as Exhs. 6/A and 6/B. He also produced requisition slip for issuance of cheques Exh. 6/C and pay-in- slip Exh. 6/D. This witness further testified before the trial Court that appellant present in the trial Court was the person, who had opened the account in the name of Muhammad Afzal. This witness further deposed before the trial Court that Exh. 5/C-4 was received in transfer delivery in respect of Account No,1730 but since there was no credit balance in the said account, he returned the same unpassed vide Exhs. 5/C-3. This witness further stated in his evidence that he correctly picked out appellant Imam Bux in identification parade on 30th March 1980 before the Magistrate. This witness had also attested signatures of appellant on his signature specimen card and appellant had signed opening account form and requisition slip in his presence. This witness further stated in his evidence that he knew appellant all along as Muhammad Afzal and later he learnt that real name of appellant was Imam Bux and not Muhammad Afzal. This witness was cross-examined in the trial Court on behalf of appellant on the point of identification but he stuck to his stand unshakenly that he had correctly picked out appellant in the identification parade. During the questions put by the trial Court this witness deposed that documents Exhs. 6/A, 6/B and 6/C were signed by appellant Imam Bux falsely showing himself as Muhammad Afzal. Appellant was introduced as Muhammad Afzal by Muhammad Aslam account-holder of Account No,1089 of Rangiwara branch.
17. ' P.W.2 Sultan Khail further deposed that appellant was issued cheque book bearing Serial No,652701 to 652725. Cheque No,652711 dated 4-11-1980 for an amount of Rs, 1,64,000 said to have been drawn on Account No,1730 was never received in his branch nor was it encashed or honoured in his branch. There was no entry whatsoever regarding this cheque in his branch. This witness further stated that had the said cheque been received and honoured in his branch, it would have been entered in the ledger account book pertaining to the account-holder and also in the Cashier's payment book. On the other hand, had it been returned without payment, it would have been entered in the clearing cheques return register. This witness further stated that no mention is made of this cheque in clearing cheques return register, which clearly shows that no such cheque; was received, hence it could not be returned.
18. ' P.W.3 Mumtaz Nabi at the relevant time was Ilnd Officer in Rangiwara branch and deposed in the trial Court about the role played by Khawar Neemrose and Khair Muhammad Baloch. According to him on 4-11-1980 transfer delivery in respect of 2 cheques for Rs, 1.67,000 was not available on bank record and the transfer delivery documents for a sum of Rs, 3,17,300 were missing, out of which a sum of Rs, 1,37,000 was connected with S.B. Account No,6391 and a sum of Rs, 1,64,000 related to C.D.
19. Account No,1089. A sum of Rs, 1,64,000 which was credited on the basis of T.D. In Account No,1089 was withdrawn from the said account by Muhammad Aslam, who was account-holder of the said account. A sum cf Rs,1,97,000 which was credited in Account S.B. No,3691 was withdrawn by Jameel account-holder. The witness further stated that both these accounts were in his branch but he was unable to identify account-holders Muhammad Aslam or Muhammad Jameel. This witness was understandably not cross-examined by appellant.
20. ' P. W.4 Hawagul was messenger in the clearing house of Habib Bank. He deposed that on 5-10-1980 Khawar Neemrose informed him that there was no T.D. For the clearing house on that day. This witness did not say anything against the appellant.
21. ' P.W.5 Muhammad Saleem was Cashier at Rangiwara Branch and deposed that appellant Imam Bux was friend of Khawar Neemrose and Khair Muhammad and used to visit them quite often. In his branch there was Saving Account No, 6391 in the name of Jameel Ahmad and Current Account No,1089 in the name of Muhammad Aslam. This witness deposed that he never saw Jameel Ahmad and Muhammad Aslam but always saw appellant Imam Bux encashing cheques relating to these two accounts. Statement of this witness was not challenged by the appellant and in cross- examination only one suggestive question was put to this witness to the effect that he was deposing at the instance of P.W. Abul Hassan and this suggestion was denied outright.
22. ' P.W.6 lqbal Hussain also worked in Rangiwara Branch at the relevant time. His evidence is same as that of P.W.5 Muhammad Saleem and it was not challenged by appellant in cross-examination except one same suggestive question which was put to Muhammad Saleem and likewise denied.
23. P.W.7 Syed Muhammad Tahir worked in transfer clearing house and produced pages from transfer delivery register as Exh. 11/A-1 to Exh. 11/A-4. He said nothing directly against appellant so he was not cross-examined by appellant.
24. ' P.W.8 Syed Masood Ali worked as Sub-Inspector in F.I.A. And he took part in the investigation cf case. He registered F.I.R. Exh. 12/A and examined a number of witnesses.. He took specimen writings and signatures of appellant and two co-accused and sent them to Mr. Chugtai handwriting expert alongwith disputed documents. Specimen writings and signatures were taken in presence of ACM Mr. Munawar Opal. He received report of expert dated 18-4-1981 but after report expert died and could not appear before the trial Court as witness. This witness as I.O. Arranged for identification test of appellant Imam Bux through PWs Abul Hassan and Sultan Khail and both witnesses correctly picked out appellant. Even this witness was not cross-examined by appellant, which shows that appellant has not challenged the veracity of this witness and also has not disputed truthfulness of whatever is stated by this witness in his statement on oath against the appellant.
25. ' P.W.9 Muhammad. Hashim Qureshi Inspector F.I.A. Produced final charge-sheet in the Court.
26. ' P.W.10 Mr. Munawar Opal A.C.M. Deposed before the trial Court that he held identification test in respect of appellant Imam Bux on 13-3-1981 and he was correctly picked out by both witnesses.
27. Appellant was mixed up with eight other dummies with similar features. He took all necessary precautions, which are required to be taken in such test. Two objections were raised in respect of statement of this witness. Firstly that memo Exh. 13/B was signed with pencil, secondly that place was not mentioned where test was held. Magistrate stated in his statement that test was held in jail while other two witnesses and I.O. Stated that it was. Held in the Court premises of the Magistrate.
28. We agree with the finding of the trial Court that venue of test was Court as claimed by 1.0. And two witnesses and in this context assertion of Magistrate that it was in jail is inadvertent mistake due to lapse of time because statement of the Magistrate was being recorded after about five years. It is also correct that this controversy is of no significance for the reason that appellant Imam Bux himself does not dispute the fact that there was identification test in which he was picked out by witnesses but he had assailed the identification test on the ground that he was shown to the witnesses before the test in the office of F.I.A.
29. ' P.W.11 Muhammad Anis was working as Cashier in Rangiwara Branch of Habib Bank. He deposed before the trial Court that he made payment in respect of nine cheques Exhs. 5/B-26 to 5/B-34 either to appellant Imam Bux or to Khawar Neemrose.
30. ' Apart from 11 witnesses examined by prosecution, the trial Court also examined 5 witnesses as Court-witnesses. C.W.1 Altafur Rehman deposed that he came from the clearing house and no cheque for Rs, 1,37,000 was received from Rangiwara Branch on 5-10-1980 nor was cheque bearing No,652711 for Rs, 1,64,000 drawn on Lea Market received in the clearing house on 4-11-1980 or thereafter. C.W.2 Syed Nasim Ahmed, member of Executive Board of Habib Bank produced in the trial Court booklet of instructions in respect of deposit of cheques for clearance and withdrawal of monies on such cheques. C.W.3 Choudhry Munir Javed is Zonal Chief of Habib Bank and deposed that no copy of schedule sent by a branch to the clearing house nor any advice sent by clearing house in respect of such cheques is sent or communicated to the Zonal Office. C.W. 4 Rafiuddin Junejo stated before the trial Court that he was unable to say whether cheque for Rs, 15,000 was received by the Foreign Exchange branch for clearance on 5-10-1980. C.W. 5 Yakoob Muhammad, Manager at Moosa Lane branch deposed that at his branch there was no account in the name of Anwar Hussain bearing No,2780-4. As a matter of fact none of five Court witnesses directly involved appellant Imam Bux as such no comment is necessary on their evidence so far appeal of present appellant is concerned. Record of the case otherwise shows that P.W.1 complainant Abul Hassan, P.W.2 Sultan, P.W.5 Muhammad Saleem, P.W.6 Iqbal Hussain, P.W.8 Syed Masood Ali, P.W.10 Mr. Munawar Opal and P.W .11 Muhammad Anis have given evidence in which appellant Imam Bux is directly involved. Strangely enough there is not much of cross-examination to these witnesses which shows that inculpatory evidence produced by prosecution against appellant Imam Bux is not seriously challenged. In his 342, Cr.P.C. Statement appellant has denied the fact that he had opened Account No,1089 in the name of Muhammad Aslam and Account No,6391-2 in the name of Jameel Ahmed or Account No,1730-06 in the name of Muhammad Afzal. He has denied that he deposited in any account two cheques for Rs, 36,000 or Rs, 1,64,000 or drawn or issued cheques Exh.
31. 5/B-26 to Exh. 5/B-34. He has admitted that he was picked out by PWs. Abul Hassan and Sultan Khail in identification test but claimed that he was shown to P. Ws. By F.I.A. Prior to the test. Lack of cross-examination or proper cross-examination to the concerned witnesses on this point indicates that appellant has not taken up this plea seriously nor any efforts were made by him to substantiate this plea. He has produced no defence. He has been identified by the witnesses to be the same person, who operated accounts mentioned above falsely in the names of Muhammad Aslam, Jameel Ahmad and Muhammad Afzal. Prosecution has proved this allegation with overwhelming evidence of conclusive nature, which stands unchallenged. Appellant was, therefore, rightly convicted and sentenced by the trial Court for offence under section 420, P.P.C. And no exception can be taken to it for reasons aforementioned.
32. ' Mr. Sohail Muzaffar, Advocate for appellant submitted before us that section 420, P.P.C. Was not a scheduled offence when the Court took cognizance in the case on 15-10-1984- as such subsequently in the case, charge would not be framed for offences under section 420, P.P.C. In this connection perusal of record shows that initially charge was framed on 15-10-1984 against appellant for offence under section 408 r/w section 109, P.P.C. Later it was amended and reframed on 12-3-1988 for offences under sections 420 and 477-A r/w Section 109 P.P.C. There is no dispute about the fact that Special Court was set up under Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts)
33. Ordinance, 1984, which came into force on 23-2-1984. At that time in the Schedule to the said Ordinance Section 420 P.P.C. Was not mentioned. Section 420, P.P.C. Was added in the First schedule by Federal notification SRO 396(1)/85, dated 28-4-1985.
34. ' Now it is quite apparent that when in the trial Court in this case charge was framed for offence under section '420, P.P.C. On 12-3-1988, the said offence was already scheduled offence as such it was exclusively triable by trial Court. Section 4 of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts)
35. Ordinance, 1984 defines jurisdiction of the Special Court and requires that Special Court would try only scheduled offences. Subsection (2) of section 4 of the said Ordinance empowers Federal Government to include in the first schedule offences from time to time by notification in the official Gazette, as it may deem necessary or expedient. Subsection (4) of this section further contemplates that whenever an offence is included in the first schedule, cases relating to it in any Court immediately would stand transferred to the Special Court. This clearly shows that intention of legislature is that when offence is included in the schedule then only Special Court has jurisdiction to try that offence and no other Court can hear that case.
36. ' In view of legal position stated above, contention of Mr. Sohail Muzaffar is untenable that Special Court would nct be competent to try offence under section 420, P.P.C. Just because when cognizance was taken, at that time Section 420, P.P.0 was not scheduled offence. One other reason to repel the contention is that originally offence under section 420, P.P.C. Is punishable with imprisonment of either description for 7 years and fine and is triable by Magistrate of First Class.
37. Now it has been included in the first schedule to be triable exclusively by Special Court but punishment remains same without any change as it is available in P.P.C., so the person, who is being tried for this offence by the Special Court is not prejudiced at all. Had this offence been included in the second schedule then ore could talk in terms of prejudice to the extent that in the second schedule minimum sentence is prescribed for each offence.
38. ' Mr. Sohail Muzaffar in support of his contention stated above has relied upon some rulings, which are distinguishable. In Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, Karachi and another v. Mannu Khan and others (1973 SCM R 62) it was held that Tribunal's jurisdiction is determinable at the commencement and not at conclusion of proceedings In the reported case Additional Claims Commissioner unauthorisedly exercised suo motu revisional powers of Claims Commissioner which act was sought to be validated by issue of notification by the Government subsequently. This was not approved by the Court and it was observed that proceedings taken by Mr. Moghul in hand were without jurisdiction and could not be sanctified on the ground that when he passed final order he had necessary powers invested in him by notification issued by Government subsequently. It is in that context that the Supreme Court observed that jurisdiction of a tribunal is determinable at the commencement and not at the conclusion of enquiry. Reported case relates to the provisions of Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act of 1956.
39. ' Another argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that all amendments made in laws are to be applied prospectively and not retrospectively. In support reliance is placed on the case of Ghulam Mustafa and another v. The State (1986 PCr.LJ 1635). This argument is not valid for two reasons. Firstly it does not cover the point at issue, which is the fact that section 420, P.P.C. Has become scheduled offence hence Special Court is competent to try it. Trial in the Special Court has not prejudiced appellant in any manner as stated above. Secondly ruling cited by the council also relates to second schedule to the said Ordinance and not the first schedule, which is relevant in the instant case. Similarly other rulings cited by Mr. Sohail Muzaffar are also distinguishable; hence we need not go into them.
40. ' We are, therefore, of considered opinion that prosecution has proved its case against appellant beyond doubt, as such his conviction and sentence for offence under section 420, P.P.C. By the trial Court are proper and valid warranted by evidence produced on the record. No interference is called for and therefore impugned judgment is maintained, and appeal is dismissed.