1. ' Prior to this application for abashment a similar application for abashment bearing No,252 of 1988 was also filed on behalf of the applicant which application was disposed of vide order, dated 12-8- 1993 by my learned brother Imam Ali G. Kazi, J. (as he then was). It would be necessary to reproduce relevant findings given by my learned brother: "The Anti-Corruption Establishment initiated proceedings against him and ultimately filed a challan against him and other four co-accused persons to stand trial before the Special Judge Anti- Corruption, Hyderabad on various charges. Surprisingly, the Chairman, Anti-Corruption Committee, Karachi has accorded sanction in respect of one charge only whereby it is alleged that the applicant had drawn a sum of Rs,1,00,035 towards same job work and purchase of two Black Stone '
2. Engines and misappropriated the amount.
3. ' Mr. Ahmed Khan Barakzai, Advocate for the applicant contends that the applicant has been challenged on the basis of F.I.R. Registered in relation to Crime No,28 of 1984 by the Anti-Corruption Establishment, Hyderabad wherein a number of allegations have been made. After usual investigation the applicant and four others were sent to stand trial in the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Hyderabad. The Chillan also refers to a number of allegations of misappropriation.
4. Sanction accorded by the competent authority relates to only one item of misappropriation. He, therefore, contends that whole proceedings are liable to be quashed.
5. ' Mr. Abdul Latif Memon, Assistant Advocate-General, Sindh, states that a public servant can only be tried for offences of misappropriation for which sanction has been accorded.
6. ' In view of the above applicant can only be tried for which sanction to prosecute him has been given. It is therefore, ordered that the applicant shall be prosecuted only in respect of charge for which sanction has been given."
7. ' The contention of Mr. Salahuddin H. Ahmed learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant is that after passing of order on 12-8-1993 a fresh charge was framed against the applicant on the basis of the directions given in the said order and after framing of the charge the trial Court has examined four witnesses, namely, Muhammad Yousif, Nasir Ahmed, Muhammad Shafi and Muhammad Saeed.
8. ' The learned Advocate further contended that none of these four witnesses have implicated the applicant in commission of the misappropriation of the amount mentioned in the charge and they all have exonerated him and in case if the case remains pending indefinitely it would amount to abuse of process of the Court. The learned Advocate has also pointed out the history of the case stating that the alleged misappropriation of the amount is stated to have been made in the year 1982 and the F.I.R. Was registered in the year 1984 i,e, after. The delay of two years but still the charge-sheet of this case was submitted before the Court of Special Judge Anti-Corruption (Provincial), Hyderabad in 1988 which shows that. The prosecution was not serious in submitting the charge-sheet against the applicant but however, when the charge-sheet was., submitted in the year 1988 the case could not proceed. The case proceeded only on the directions of this Court which contained in the order dated 12-8-1993. But in spite of that order the remaining witnesses have not been examined by the trial Court for the reasons best known to the prosecution. However, Mr. Abdul Latif Ansari, Assistant Advocate-General has shown me certain letters which show that these witnesses were being informed by him to appear and give evidence on behalf of prosecution before the trial Court but in spite of that they did not turn up.
9. ' 'Mr. Ansari, learned Assistant Advocate-General after going through the entire record of this case is of the opinion that if this case remains pending in the trial Court it would amount to abuse of the process of the Court on the ground that the F.I.R. Was registered in 1984 but the charge-sheet was submitted in 1988 i,e, after the delay of four years then thereafter the case could not proceed but it proceeded on the directions of this Court when an application for quashment was filed and moreover, the prosecution took the action in this case on an anonymous application of one Mehmood Ali Khan but thereafter he denied the contents of that anonymous application and had exonerated the applicant and has even denied whether he has sent such application to the authorities concerned.
10. ' I have heard the arguments of both the learned Advocates and perused the record of this case including the order passed by this Court dated 12-8-1993.
11. These are admitted facts that the alleged offence was committed in 1982. F.I.R. Was registered in 1984 and then charge-sheet was submitted in 1988 and thereafter on the orders of this Court the trial Court examined four witnesses who have not supported the case of the prosecution and moreover according to F.I.R. The applicant is alleged to have misappropriated an amount of Rs,1,00,035 whereas sanction order shows only an amount of Rs,36,140 therefore, it also appears that sanction for the prosecution of the applicant has not been given for sanctioned amount which is only for Rs,36,140. Moreover the proceedings of this case is pending since 1984 and in spite of the efforts made by the learned Assistant Advocate-General the remaining prosecution witnesses are not turning up to give evidence in this tase and in case if these malicious type of proceedings are allowed to remain pending which would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. In the circumstances the proceedings in Crime No,28 of 1984 (State v. Syed Ghulam Mani and others)
12. Case No,124 of 1988 pending before the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Hyderabad are quashed.