1. ' NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.--Applicant M.B. Abbasi, who was the president of National Bank of Pakistan, has filed this application, under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., for quashment of proceedings arising from F.I.R. No,4 of 1997 registered on 21-1-1997 at Police Station F.I.A./C.B.C., Karachi, under section 109/409/34, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) Act II of 1947, pending before the Special Court (Offences in Banks), Sindh at Karachi. The facts relevant for disposal of this application are as follows: ' The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicant, during a visit to Islamabad, had decided to acquire a portion (7000 sq.Ft.) of a building, which was under construction in Commercial Area Markaz, G-9, Islamabad, for opening therein a new branch of the Bank. It is alleged that, on his instructions the Regional Authority of the Bank at Islamabad, forwarded a proposal in July, 1995 for acquiring said premises on rental basis, recommending advance payment for three years amounting to Rs,5 Million at the rate of Rs,20 per sq. Ft. And for entering into a lease agreement for five years. It is also alleged that the applicant had approved said proposal without having obtained necessary sanction from the State Bank of Pakistan. The branch was formally opened on 30th September, 1996. Further it is alleged that, in fact, the transaction was done to show favour to the owner of said property, who is a relative of Mr. Asif Ali Zardari, the spouse of the former Prime Minister of Pakistan. Also, it is submitted that for said purpose the 'Banks' Mark-up free fund' of Rs,5.04 Million was utilised for construction of said premises. On completion of investigation, the interim charge-sheet was submitted before the trial Court.
2. ' In the month of July, 1997 the applicant had filed, an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C.
3. Before said Special Court and the same was dismissed vide order, dated 30th October, 1997. The applicant, now, has filed this application for quashment of the proceedings.
4. ' Mr.Azizullah K.Sheikh, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been involved falsely in 6 criminal cases, including the present one. He argued that so far even final charge-sheet has not been submitted in this case. He also argued that the idea of opening the branch was not initiated by the applicant, but, in fact, it was processed in routine by the Regional Office of the bank at Islamabad and to examine its feasibility a survey was conducted and thereafter the Zonal Head, the General Manager, and the Senior Vice-President Corporate Affairs Division, had strongly recommended for establishing said branch. Learned counsel submitted that it was not known to the applicant that said building belonged to a relative of Mr. Asif Ali Zardari and that to his (applicant) knowledge it was owned by 'Alamdar Tahwal and Nasira (Pvt.) Ltd.". Learned counsel also contends that no loss was caused to the Bank and that the advance paid to the owner of said building is being recovered in instalments and said branch is functioning satisfactorily and is earning profits.
5. ' Although, learned counsel for the applicant has raised above contentions, but he laid emphasis mainly on two grounds. Firstly, he argued that said building is at Islamabad, Lease Agreement was executed there, and the payment was made there, as such, the Social Court at Karachi has no jurisdiction to entertain this matter. Secondly, he contended that about a year has passed but the F.I.A. Authorities have not, yet, submitted final charge-sheet and it is, besides abuse of the process of Court, an act of injustice towards the applicant.
6. ' As regards, the point of jurisdiction, it is noted that, as per section 179, Cr.P.C. Where an act is done or where its consequence ensues such offence can be enquired into or tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any such thing has been done or any such consequence has ensued.
7. ' Mr. Mubbarrak Hussian Siddiqui, learned Deputy Attorney-General has submitted a photocopy of Office Note dated 15-8-1995 of Corporate Affairs Divisions, Customer Services Wing, National Bank Head Office Karachi, which shows that the proposal for establishing said branch was approved by the applicant on 17-8-1995 at Karachi. In this case, the act was done at Karachi and its consequences ensued at Islamabad. Therefore, the offence could be tried at both the abovementioned places.
8. ' So far the second contention is concerned, learned counsel for the applicant argued that since it is a case of abuse of process of the Court, this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under section 561- A, Cr.P.C. Can quash the proceedings. He submitted that no offence was made out and for that reason the final charge-sheet was not submitted and the Special Court, as a matter of routine, extended the time whenever such prayer was made. In the case of Ghulam Nabi and another v.
9. The State 1996 PCr.LJ 1335 a D.B. Of this Court comprising the then Acting Chief Justice and myself on the scope of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Had observed as follows: "The law on the point of inherent power of the High Court in relation to section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is now well-settled. High Court possesses power to remove injustice and statutory recognition has been accorded of this power of High Court by virtue of said section. The examples of inherent powers possessed by High Court under this section are, to make such orders as may be necessary to given effect of its decisions or to prevent an abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is an established principle of law that all Courts whether Civil or Criminal, must possess inherent powers, which are necessary to their existence and their proper functioning. This is based on the principle embodied in the maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, conceder vide turn sine quo res ipas esse non potest, which means that when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which, it cannot exist. The consensus of the superior Court is that inherent power cannot be invoked in respect of the matters, which are covered by specific provisions of Cr.P.C. Nor this section can be applied for overriding an express provision of law, which restricts or limits the power of the Court. Power under this section is to be sparingly exercised and this Court would not hold an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not, as basically it is the function of the trial Court nor it can be urged before this Court that on the basis of proper appreciation of evidence the charge could not be sustained against the accused.".
10. It is true that a great emphasis is laid on the point that a criminal case must be disposed of as early as possible, but at the same time, the view that time is of the essence in criminal prosecution has not been recognised as of universal application. When national finances are plundered by a public functionary in his capacity a shoulder of a public office such person would not be entitled to acquittal simply on the ground of delay. In the case of M.S. Khawaja v. The State PLD 1965 SC 287 while dealing with section 561-A, Cr.P.C.; it was held: "Limitation does not apply to criminal prosecutions, and it is also inappropriate to examine questions of delay through the actions of the Government, or the prosecution authorities as if they gave rise to equities, on the same footing as in a civil matter inter parts. Every prosecution for a criminal offence is to be deemed to have been commenced and continued in the public interest; as a duty of the State. It can only be in a very rare case that a superior Court acting under its inherent power 'to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice', would deem it appropriate to act so as to place an alleged offence outside the operation of the criminal law, on incidental grounds such as that of delay, or for any reasons other than reasons going to the question whether the allegation is sufficient to constitute an accusation of an offence in law."
11. ' A Full Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of A. Habib Ahmed v. M.K.G. Scott Christian and 5 others PLD 1992 SC 353 held that, if prima facie, the offence had been committed ordinary course of trial was not to be deflected through an approach to inherent jurisdiction of High Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. As said section could not be utilised as to interrupt or divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure as laid down in the Procedural Statute.
12. Coming back to the facts of the instant case, it is noted that the question of insufficiency of evidence or its non-credibility cannot be a ground for quashment of the proceedings, nor the allied question concerning the appreciation of evidence can be dilated upon, while exercising jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Basically, it is the function of Trial Court and this Court would not short circuit the normal procedure of trial, as provided by law.
13. It appears that the. Trial Court granted adjournments mostly on the ground that the matter was still under investigation and final charge-sheet was not submitted. We are of the view that so many adjournments should not have been granted on above ground and in view of proviso of subsection
(1) of section 173, Cr.P.C. The trial shall have been commenced on the basis of the interim charge- sheet. Accordingly, we direct that trial shall be started without any further delay.
14. ' With above observations, this criminal application is dismissed in limine along with the listed application.