1. ' The revision petition has been addressed against the order of Additional Tehsil Criminal Court, Mirpur, dated 6-5-1995, through which the application of the petitioner presented under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Was dismissed.
2. ' The precise facts are as under: that an F.I.R. Was lodged against the petitioners on 1-1-1993 at 5-00 p.m., whereby it was contended that in continuation of Letter MIR/236/29, dated 14-12-1992, it was omitted that the management of M/s. Golden Star Ghee Industry borrowed Rs,22.00 million in the year 1986. The management closed the project in year 1988. The management forcibly lifted pledged bods and disposed of in the market in February, 1989. In this connection a case was ' registered against the managing director of the said company at Police Station Afzal Pur on 25-5- 1989, and investigation was handed to C.I.A., Mirpur. The case for ovary of Rs,13.00 million and Rs,3.00 million mark-up is sub-judice before Banking tribunal, Lahore. The watchman was richly thrown out by the management in February, 1992. Now this fact came to the notice that the stocks which were pledged with the Bank have been lifted by the management and sold in the market.
3. The details of stocks are as under:--
(i) Tin plates 162 MT approximate cost Rs,25,00,000.
(ii) Cotton seed-oil ,284 MTA approximate cost Rs,39,70,000.
(iii) RBD oil 224 MT approximate cost Rs,32,48,000.
(iv) Chemicals Rs,8,27,000.
(v) Ghee 465 tins Rs,1,20,000.
(vi) Soap 360 Kg. Approximate cost 4,000. Total Rs,1,06,69,900.
4. Pilferage of Rs,53,30,100 was also done by the management of the company. It was also submitted by the complainant that necessary directive may be issued to S.H.O. For registration and investigation of the ease and pledged goods may also be recovered. On this report the case was registered under section 454 A.P.C. And section 14 of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Act, 1985. After necessary investigation challan was presented in the Court on 28-8-1993.
5. On 10-12-1994 an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C., was presented in the Court below, wherein the petitioners contended that because of the insufficient evidence no case has been made out against the petitioners. There is no chance of conviction of the petitioners, therefore, in case of trial, it will be just wastage of Court's time. The petitioners submitted that they should be acquitted under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. The trial Court after hearing the arguments of the parties passed impugned order, which is subject-matter of revision petition before us.
6. ' Ch. Muhammad Azam Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that F.I.R. Does not disclose any case and the accused are not named in the F.I.R. He further contended that no article has been shown to be recovered from the other accused except Naeem. He also submitted that according to the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the case cannot be proved and there is no chance of the conviction of the accused. Therefore, according to him in case of trial no useful purpose will be Served. He also submitted that powers under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Can be invoked by the. Court at any stage of the trial.
7. ' While controverting their arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, Haji Muhammad Anwar Khan, the learned counsel for the complainant argued that delay in F.I.R. Has been explained. He further contended that a case was registered against the accused and after necessary investigation, the challan was presented before the Court. It was also alleged by the learned counsel for the complainant that the trial Court has already taken the cognizance of the case and in the light of the prosecution evidence a prima facie case has been made out. He defended the order of the trial Court and submitted for the dismissal of the petition, ' The learned Additional Advocate-General, supported the 'arguments advanced by Haji Muhammad Anwar Khan, the learned counsel for the complainant in the light of the arguments addressed at the bar, I have carefully examined the record of the case. It transpires from the record that the challan has been presented before the lower Court and the Court has already taken the cognizance of the case. The prosecution has nominated twelve witnesses in the challan. The statements of the accused under section 242, Cr,P,C, has not been recorded, The statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C,, recovery memo., Supurd Name and other proof attached with the file shows that a prima-facie case has been made out against the accused, I do not want to make any comment about the delay in F,I,R,, because it will certainly prejudice the case of the either party. Suffice to say, that the detailed scrutiny of the record makes it crystal clear that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused and at this stage ,of the case the trial Court has very rightly declined to invoke its powers under section 249-A, Cr,P,C, ' I very much agree with this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the powers under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Can be invoked at any stage of the trial even before the framing of the charge but in that case it is incumbent upon the trial Court to record the reasons that the charge against the accused is groundless or that there is no probability of accused being convicted of any offence. The Court has certainly power to interfere whenever there is an exceptional and extraordinary reason for that. Test to determine whether a particular case is or an exceptional nature, differs from case to case. For the reasons growing tendency amongst the Courts of frequently invoking section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Has been disapproved by the Superior Courts, In the instant case as has already been held, the facts of the case prima facie indicate the commission of alleged offence. Therefore, the trial Court has very rightly passed the impugned order, which does not call for any interference.
8. ' In the light of what has been discussed above, I see no force in this revision petition, which is hereby dismissed.