' The learned Deputy Attorney-General has raised preliminary objection that under section 10 of the Banks Special Courts Ordinance, 1984, the petitioner could maintain an appeal which is to be heard by two Judges of this Court, therefore, the writ petition is not competent.
2. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial was in absentia, therefore, void. It is added that had this petition not been admitted to hearing than the petitioner might have resorted to file an appeal.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments and gone through the record. The whole grounds including that of illegal absentia trial could validly be raised in the appeal. The petitioner could explain the limitation with reference to sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act. The preliminary objection is upheld. The petitioner has not surrendered so far. He is for all intents and purposes fugitive from law, therefore, cannot maintain this petition. The same is dismissed.