1. 'NAIMUDDIN, C.J.-- The petitioner is facing trial under section 406/420/468/471/34, P.P.C., in the Special Court (Offences in Banks) Karachi. The petitioner's grievance in this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is that the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court has closed the petitioner's side, by the order dated 9-2-1988, and has not given the opportunity to produce defence witnesses.
2. ' We have heard Mr. Jawaid Haider Kazim, learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Presiding Officer of the Special Court disregarded the earlier order for summoning the defence witnesses through the process of the Court and that the witnesses were not at all summoned.
4. ' The answer to this submission is found in the order dated 9-2-1988 itself and it is that on 9.2-1988, the petitioner was present in custody in Court and he stated that no witnesses of his are in attendence and he gives up the defence witnesses, therefore, the case was adjourned to 24th February, 1988. We may reproduce the order dated 9-2-1988 in extenso, which reads as follows:- "Accused Jamal Shahid present in custody. Accused states that no witnesses of his area in attendance and he gives up the defence witnesses. Adjourned to 24th February, 1988.
5. ' After the case was adjourned to 24-2-1988, the learned counsel Mr. Hanif Kashmiri, holding brief for Mr_laved Kazmi submitted an application signed by the learned counsel for the accused prying for adjournment on the gorund of his illness. The case was fixed today for the production and examination of defence witnesses and last chance was given for the production and examination of DWs. The accused has already given up the DWs. Although there is curfew in various parts of the city, the curfew was lifted from 6 a.m. To 8 a.m. And therefore it was quite easy for the witnesses if they so desired, to appear before this Court. My own staff resides in the curfew area and they all are present. The excuse therefore of curfew is not appropriate."
6. ' Since, the Petitioner himself has given up his witnesses, therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is not well-founded. The petitioner was also given last opportunity on 26-1.1988, to produce the defence witnesses and hearing was adjourned to 9-2-1988, we may produce the order dated 26-1- 1988 which reads as follows:- ' Evidence of Asstt. Superintendent, Central Jail, Wilayat Hussain Shah recorded. No other D.Ws are present. The learned counsel for the accused submits that he has sent the summons by registered post to the eefence witnesses but he has not received any reply from those witnesses except one witness Muhammad Iqbal who has sent Medical Certificate of his illness. The learned counsel requests for last opportunity to be able to produce the defence witnesses. Adjourned to 9th February, 1988."
7. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner, in our opinion, is not well- A founded. In any case, if the petitioner is convicted in the case he can take all or any ground available to him in appeal against such conviction and also against the impugned order. It is rightly conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an appeal would lie from the judgment passed in the case to this Court if it goes against the petitioner. Interference in the proceedings at this stage in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution on the facts of this case, is therefore, in our opinion not warranted.
8. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, relied on Altaf Hussain v. The State PLD 1985 Lah. 10 in support of his submission that claim for ouster of the powers of the High Court should not be lightly accepted, firstly, no such claim is made by any body before us, secondly, the Constitutional jurisdiction generally is not exercised against an interlocutory order particularly when such an order can be attacked in appeal against final judgment or order as interference at the interlocutory stage tends to delay the final decision of the case and is not conducive to the expeditious disposal of the main case.
9. ' We, therefore, dismiss this petition in limine.