SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.- In this appeal is challenged judgment dated 30th April, 1988 of learned Presiding Officers Special Court (Offences in Banks) at Karachi, where by appellant is convicted under Section 420 P.P.C, and sentenced to for 12 months and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- or in defauIt for six months. Initially appellant was put on trial along with two other co-accused namely Khawar Neemrose and Khair Mohammad Baloch for offences under Sections 420, 468, 471,409/34 PPC read with Section 5(2) of Act II but subsequently after trial, by the impugned judgment, both co-accused have been acquitted and appellant is consuIted and sentenced as stated above.
2. Briefly stated the relevant facts, giving rise to this appeal, are that at the relevant time in December, 1980 from acquitted co-accused Khawar Neemrose was Incharge C.D and S.B.
Accounts and Khair Mohammad 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.
3,01,000/- was discovered to have been committed. A cheque of Rs.1,37,000/- deposited in Account No. SB-6391 drawn on Habib Bank, Bhimpura Branch was sent for transfer delivery for collection, which was stolen and credit proceeds were found to have been withdrawn by various cheques.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 Amar Hussain (S.B Account No. 2780 at Bhimpura Branch). In the second instance, cheques 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sent to Lea Market Branch and credit thereof was fraudulently passed in CD Account No.1089 and the entire amount was withdrawn. This amount was in the name of Mohammad 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 Mohammad Balouch were suspected along with same outsiders. Bank report was lodged by Manager of Bank, Rangiwara Branch on 7.12.1980 with F.I.A.
3. During the investigation, documents from the Bank were seized and suspected Bank-employees and appellant were arrested. Charge- sheet was present in the Court on 22.9.1983, in which Investigating Officer had come to the conclusion that appellant Imam Bux had withdrawn fraudulently a sum of Rs. 2,01,800/- with the connivance of Abdul Hameed Khokhar, Khawar Neemrose and Khair Mohammad Baloch, who are officers of Habib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. PC co-accused Abdul Hamid Khokhar was acquitted on 15.10.1984 and on the same dav charge was reframed against remaining three accused for offences under sections
4. 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', hereinafte 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 appellate 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.
5. 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 Necmrose and Khair Mohammad Baloch, who arc 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 Account No. 1089 and 6391-2 at Rangiwara Branch, Account No. 1730 at Lee Market Branch and Account No.2780 at Bhimpura Branch 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 sopened by himself which had no funds and has also issued cheque for Rs. 36,000/- which was drawn on Account No.6391 of Rangiwara Branch.
6. P.W.1 abdul 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 Necmrosc 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 leger of account holder and returned to him, it was lying in the drawer of Khawar Neemrose. This arose suspicion of Abdul Hassan, who informed to Zonal Office and in the resuIt Chaudhry Munir Javed, Zonal Chief came and investigated the matter. During the course of investigation, it was discovered that a cheqaue of Rs.1,64,000/- was received for transfer delivery in C.D. Account No. 1089 of Mr. Mohammad 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. Crose 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 ex-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 Itd., 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 Mohammad Baloch along with some outsiders.
7. 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 Mohammad Aslam by registered post but it could not be delivered and returned by Postal Authorities. Abul Hassan further testified before the trial Court that he did not know appellant Imam Bux personally but had seen him visiting KLhawar Neemrose and Khair Mohammad 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 hank cheques. Khair Mohammad as Assistant was responsible for preparation of transfer delivery, writing of daily tansfer book, issue of cash token, receiving of cheques from parlies deposited in transfer delivery or in clearance and to pass on the same to Khawar Ncemrose for his signatures on relative papers and vouchers. Khair Mohammad Baloch was working under the supervision of Khawar Ncemrose.
8. P.W. 1 Abul Hassan further stated in his evidence that Account No. 6391 was opened by Jameel Ahmed, who was introduced by Anwar Hussain, who was maintaining an account at Bhimpura Branch of Habib Bank, Current Account No. 1089 was opened by Mohammad Aslam on 14-10-1980 who was introduced by Khawar Neemrosc who verified signatures on opening form and specimen signature card. Khawar Neemrose issued Cheque Book bearing No. 618076 to 618100 to account holder Mohammad Aslam. In respect of cheque for Rs. 1,37,000/- in the account of Jameel Ahmed, pay-in-slip was received by Khawar Neemrose along with cheque. Scheudle of collection mentioned in cx-3/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 Mohammad but cheque for Rs.1,37,000/- was never received by Bhimpura Branch. This witness P.W.
1 Abul Huasan further stated before the trial court that on enquiry Khawar Neemrose informed him that account holder Mohammad 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 Mohammad 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. 2,000/- with which account was opened and the last credit entry is of Rs. 2,74,000/- 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 misapropriated and in respect of which Khawar Neemrose was put on trial.
9. This witness Abul Hassan has further deposed before the trial court that Account No.6391-2 was opened in the name of Jameel Ahmed Jamil Ahmad was introduced by account holder of Bhimpura Btranch and this witness had approved the opening of the said account. This witness identified appellant Imam Bux in the court to be the same person who opened account in the name of Jameel Ahmed. This witness further identified ex-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".
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 Ahmed.
P.W. 1 Abul Hassan during investigation correctly picked out appellant Imam Bux on 30th March, 1980 in the identification parade before a Magistrate.
10. 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. I.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 FIA 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 PW.l Abul Hassan, who had implicated appellant as stated above.
11. PW.2 SuItan Khail deposed before the trial court that he was manager Habib Bank Itd. Lea Market Branch in which on 28-10-1980 account No.1730 was opened by Mohammad Afzal s/0 Mohammad Iqbal. In that connection he produced opening form and specimen signature card as Ex.6/A and 6/B. He also produced requisition slip for issuance of cheques Ex.6/C and pay in slip Ex.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 Mohammad Afzal. This witness further deposed before the trial court that Ex.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 Ex.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 Magislrtatc. 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 Mohammad Afzal and later he learnt that real name of appellant was Imam Bux and not Mohammad 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 unshakcnly that lie had correctly picked out appellant in the identification parade. During the questions put by the trial court this witness deposed that documents Ex.6/A, 6/B and 6/C were signed by appellant Imam Bux falsely showing himself as Mohammad Afzal. Appellant was introduced as Mohammad Afzal by Mohd Aslam account holder of account No. 1089 of Rangiwara branch.
12. PW.2 SuItan 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.l,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.
13. PW3 Mumtaz Nabi at the relevant time was IInd Officer in Rangiwara branch and deposed in the trial court about the role played by Khawar Naecmrose and Khair Mohd 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 these transfer delivery document for a sum of Rs.3,17,300/- were missing, out of which a sum of Rs. 1,37,000/- was connected with SB account No.6391 and a sum of Rs. 1,64,000/- related to CD account No.1089. A sum of Rs.l,64,000/- which was credited on the basis of T.D. In account No.1089 was withdrawn from the said account by Mohd Aslam, who was account holder of the said account. A sum of Rs.l,37,000/- which was credited in account No.SB 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 Mohd Aslam or Mohd Jameel. This witness was understandably not cross-examined by appellant.
PW.4 Hawagul was messanger in the clearing house of Habib Bank. He deposed that on 5-10-1980 Khawar Naeemrosc informed him that there was no T.D fpr the clearing house on that day. This witness did not say any thing against the appellant.
PW.5 Mohd Saleern was cashier at Rangiwara branch and deposed that appellant Imam Bux was friend of Khawar Naecmrose and Khair Mohd 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 Mohd Aslam. This witness deposed that he never saw Jameel Ahmad and Mohd 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 PW Abul Hassan and this suggestion was denied outright.
PW.6 Iqbal Hussain also worked in Rangiwara branch at the relevant time. His evidence is same as that of PW.5 Mohd Saleern and it was not challenged by appellant in cross-examination except one same suggestive question which was put to Mohd Saleern and likewise denied.
PW.7 Syed Mohd Tahir worked in transfer clearing house and produced pages from transfer delivery register as Ex.Ll/A-1 to EX.Ll/A-4. He said nothing directly against appellant so he was not cross-examined by appellant.
PW.8 Syed Masood Ali worked as Sub-Inspector in F.I.A and he took part in the ivestigation of case.
He registered FIR Ex.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 along with disputed documents. Specimen writings and signatures were taken in presence of ACH Mr. Munawar Opal. He received report of expert dated 18-4-1981 but after report expert died and could not appeal before the trial court as witness. This witness as I.O. Arranged for identification test of appellant Imam Bux through PWs Abul Hassan and SuItan 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 truthfuIness of whatever is stated by this witness in his statement on oath against the appellant.
PW.9 Mohd Hashim Qureshi Inspector FIA produced final charge- sheet in the court.
PW.10 Mr. Munawar Opal ACH deposed before the trial court that he held identification lest in respect of appellant Imam Bux on 13.3.1981 and he was correctly picked out by both witnesses.
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 Ex.l-3/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.
We agree with the finding of the trial court that venue of test was court as claimed by I.O 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 docs 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.
PW.Ll Mohd 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 Ex.5/B -26 to 5/B-34 either to appellant Imam Bux or to Khawar Nacemrose.
15. Apart from 11 witnesses examined by prosecution, the trial court also examined 5 witnesses as court-witnesses. CW.l AItafur 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.658711 for Rs. 1,64,000/- drawn on Lea market received in the clearing house on 4-11- 1980 or thereafter. CW.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 nominics on such cheques. CW.3 Choudhry Munir Javcd 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. CW.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. CW.5 Yakoob Mohammad, 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.
16. Record of the case otherwise shows that PW.l complainant Abul Hassan, PW.2 SuItan, PW.5 Mohad Saleern, PW.6 Iqbal Hussain, PW.8 Syed Masood Ali, PW.10 Mr. Munawar Opal and PW.Ll Mohd Anis have given evidence in which appellant Imam Bux is directly involved. Strangely enough there is not much of cross-examination to these witness which shows that inculpatory evidence produced by prosecution against appellant Imam Bux is not seriously challenged. In his 342 Cr.PC statement appellant has denied the fact that he had opened account No.1089 in the name of Mohd Aslam and account No.6391-2 in the name of Jamcel Ahmed or account No.1730-06 in the name of Mohd Af/al. 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 Ex.5/B-26 to Ex.5/B-34. He has admitted that he was picked out by PWs Abul Hassan and SuItan Khail in identification test but claimed that he was shown to PWs by FIA prior to the test. Lack of cross-examination or proper cross-examination to the concerned witnesses on this point indicate 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 Mohd Aslam, Jamcel Ahmed and Mohd 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 u/S 420 PPC and no exception can be taken to it for reasons aforementioned.
17. Mr. Sohail Muzaffar, Advocate for appellant submitted before us that Section 420 PPC was not 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 offence u/S 420 PPC. In this connection perusal of record shows that initially charge was framed on 15-10-1984 against appellant for offence u/S 408 r/w Section 109 PPC. Later it was amended and reframed on 12-3-1988 for offences u/Ss 420 and 477-A r/w Section 109 PPC. There is no dispute about the fact that special court was set up under Offences in respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, which come into force on 23.2.1984.
At that time in the schedule to the said Ordinance Section 420 PPC was not mentioned. Section 420 PPC was added in the First Schedule by Federal notification SRO 396(l)/85 dated 28-4-1985.
18. Now it is quite apparent that when in the trial court in this ease charge was framed for offence u/S 420 PPC on 12-3-1988, the said offence was already scheduled offences as such it was exclusively triable by trial court. Section 4 of the Offences in respect of Banks (Special Court)
Ordiancc, 1984 defines jurisdiction of the special court and requires that special court would try only scheduled offences. Sub-Section (2) of Section 4 of the said Ordinance empowers Federal Government to include in the first schedule offences from lime to time by notification in the official gazette, as it may deem necessary or expedient. Sub-Section (4) of this Section further contemplates that whenever an offence is included in the first schedule, eases 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 ease.
19. In view of legal position stated above,contention of Mr. Sohail Muzaffar is untenable that special court would not be competent to try offence u/S 420 PPC just because when cognizance was taken, at that time Section 420 PPC was not scheduled offence. One other reason to repel the contention is that originally offence u/S 420 PPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for 7 years and fine and is triable by Magistrate of First class. 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 PPC, 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 one could talk in terms of prejudice to the extent that in the second schedule minimum sentence is prescribed for each offence.
20. Mr. Sohail Muzaffar in support of his contention stated above has relied upon some rulings, which arc distinguishable. In settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, Karachi and another versus 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 ease 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 Registrar of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act of 1956.
21. Another argument raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that all amendments made in laws arc to be applied prospectively and not retrospectively. In support reliance is placed on the case of Ghulam Mustafa and another versus the Stale (1986 P.Cr. L.J. 1635). This argument is not valid for two reasons. Firstly it docs not cover the point at issue, which is the fact that Section 420 PPC 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 Counsel aslo 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 arc also distinguishable, hence we need not go into them.
22. We arc, therefore, of considered opinon that prosecution has proved its case against appellant beyond doubt, as such his conviction and sentence for offence u/S 420 PPC by the trial court arc proper and said nominated by evidence produced on the record. No interference is called for and therefore impugned judgment is maintained and appeal is dismissed.