' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the judgment of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 23-2-1994. Respondent No,1, who is accused in a case under section 420/468/ 471/109/419/409/201/467, P . P. C . Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 (F.I.R. No,285 dated 2-7-1990) applied for bail before arrest before the Special Court (Offences in Respect of Banks), Lahore which was rejected by order dated 26-7-1992.
Respondent No,1 after rejection of his application for pre-arrest bail by the Special Court (Offences in Respect of Banks) moved another application before the Special Judge (Central) Anti- Corruption, Rawalpindi, on 2-8-1992 for grant of bail after arrest. This application was taken up by the Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, and by order dated 4-8-1992 he admitted respondent No,1 to interim bail on the ground that he was a patient of serious heart ailment, till such time his bail is confirmed by a competent Court. It appears that thereafter the matter was placed before the Special Judge (Central), Rawalpindi, who confirmed the interim bail granted by Sessions Judge to respondent No,1, by his order dated 27-992. The petitioner challenged the order of the Special Judge (Central), Rawalpindi confirming the interim bail granted by the Sessions Judge before the High Court and raised the question of jurisdiction of the Court in allowing bail to the respondent No,
1. It was specifically contended before the High Court that the offence committed by respondent No,1 was a scheduled offence which was exclusively tribal by the Special Court (Offences in Respect of Banks) and neither the Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, nor the Special Judge (Central), Rawalpindi, had the jurisdiction in the matter. The learned Judges of the Division Bench, however, declined to interfere with the order granting bail to respondent No,1 without disposing of the jurisdiction point raised before them. The contentions of the petitioner that neither Sessions Judge, nor Special Judge (Central), Rawalpindi had jurisdiction in the case as offences alleged against respondent No,1 were scheduled offences which were tribal exclusively, by a Special Court (Offences in Respect of Banks) and that the pre-arrest bail to respondent was already refused by that Court, require consideration. We, accordingly, grant leave to appeal. Appeal may be fixed at an early date.