1. ' The applicant is facing trial before Special Court (Offences in Banks) Sindh at Karachi arising out of F.I.R. No, 65 of 1988 at Police Station F.I.A (C.B.C.) Karachi under section 409/477-A, C.P.C. Read with section 5(2), P.C.A.-II of 1947.
2. ' The applicant was appointed as Head Cashier in National Bank of Pakistan Clifton Cantonment Branch at CC-38 Clifton Cantonment Board Building Phase VI Kliayaban-e-Rahat Defence Housing Authority Karachi. On 22-10-1998, at the closing hours, the cash was checked by Mr. S. Shahid Ali Officer Grade-II and he found that there was shortfall of Rs,1,100,000 (Rupees one million one hundred thousand only). On enquiry applicant Asif Ali Naqvi informed that he had paid the said amount to his friends and be promised to refund the same on the next day. The higher officials were informed about this incident on telephone. Upon which the applicant was warraned to arrange for the amount and recover the same from the persons to whose he passed on. On the next day Asif Ali Naqvi gave a telephone call to the complainant that he is arranging for the amount and as soon as he got it he will deposit the same in the Bank. Bank Authorities in the meantime received certain telephone calls. The persons speaking on telephone issued threats to the complainant, that if he lodged F.I.R. He will not be spared and will be killed. The complainant informed about these threats to high officials and he contacted the applicant at his residence.
3. Ultimately, his wife Mst. Zulle Huma on 26-10-1998 visited the branch. She was informed about misappropriation of the amount by her husband. She informed them that applicant/accused has not contacted her for the last 4 days. She, however, on enquiries told the bank authorities that she has not informed about his missing to anybody nor has lodged any report to that effect with police.
4. She, however, undertaken to arrange for the payment. Consequent to it, she paid the amount of Rs,63,720 which was deposited in the Bank.
5. ' The applicant thereafter, did not contact the Bank authorities and consequently, the F.I.R. Was lodged on 28-10-1998 by Humayun Shafiq Manager National Bank of Pakistan Clifton Cantonment Board Branch Karachi.
6. ' The police after registration of took up the investigation and made their efforts to apprehend Asif Ali Naqvi but they could not trace him out and ultimately interim challan was submitted by police on 14-11-1998 wherein applicant/accused was shown as absconder.
7. ' It is contended by Mr. S.M. Amir Naqvi that accused was arrested on 18-4-1999 and the police has failed to submit final challan of applicant till today. It is further contended that the applicant/accused had never absconded and he also executed a written undertaking whereby he assured to make the payment good. He further contended that the household articles, prize bonds, National Certificates and Special Saving Certificates were borrowed by his wife from friends and relatives which were subsequently delivered to the police. The applicant is not in contact with his wife. The learned counsel has further argued that case against accused is false and the F.I.R. Has been delayed by 6 days which makes the case doubtful.
8. ' Mr. S. Namnoon Hassan learned Dy.A.-G. For the State has strongly opposed the bail plea of the applicant/accused and has contended that applicant/accused was cashier in Bank and is involved in embezzlement of huge amount.
9. The perusal of the record shows that the applicant was admittedly incharge of the cash. The shortfall of the cash was detected on 22-10-1998, when the same was checked by Mr. S. Shahid Ali, Officer Grade-II. The delay in the case is well-explained as the bank authorities wanted to recover the embezzled amount by negotiations but the effort went in vain. Finding no other way out, they reported the matter to police. The bank employees are witness is against him and so also the documents reveal the shortfall of cash to the tune of Rs, 11, 00,000. The complainant and other bank authorities have no enmity with the applicant. It is obvious that the applicant is involved in the embezzlement of huge amount and the offence under section 409, P.P:C. Is punishable with imprisonment for life.
10. ' The provisions of section 5 (6), Offences in respect of banks Special Courts Ordinance, 1984 are departure from section 497, Cr.P.C., and therefore, in cases of conflict in between provisions of Ordinance and the Provisions of Cr.P.C., the Special Act/Ordinance will prevail. Section 12 of Ordinance makes it clear that provisions of the Ordinance shall have effect, notwithstanding, anything contained in the Code or in any other law for the time being in force.
11. ' The comparative study of section 5(6) of the. Ordinance and section 497, Cr.P.C. Will show that bail can be refused if there appear reasonable grounds to believe that accused is guilty of the offence.
12. The additional incriminating piece of evidence against the applicant/accused is that the short fall of the amount was detected in the presence of applicant/accused and thereafter he absconded.
13. ' Thus, there are reasonable grounds to believe that prima facie applicant/accused is guilty of the offence and his bail plea merits no consideration. Consequently the bail application stands dismissed.