' NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.---On 18-11-1996, F.I.R. Of this case was registered on the report of Inspector Hussain Ali Baloch. According to the prosecution, an enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Director, F.1. A., regarding malpractices in Pakistan Steel Mills, Karachi towards the purchase of level indicators during the year 1966, wherein it was revealed that the accused persons of this case in active collusion of Zulfiqar respondent (of M/s. Universal Industrial Corporation) committed the act of criminal breach of trust and caused loss to the tune of Rs,28 million to the State.
Therefore, the case was registered under sections 409/109/34, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Act II of 1947. The respondent moved an application before Special Judge (Central) II, Karachi under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. For acquittal; which was rejected by trial Court with the following observations:-- ' "It is also relevant to point out that this application has been moved and argued at very belated stage only when learned prosecutor has given up all the remaining witnesses and that case was fixed for statement of the accused. As such the clear picture would emerge only after the accused record their statements and also lead their defence. As such, all the points raised by the learned defence counsel shall be minutely examined after the needful is done. For the aforesaid reasons the application is rejected."
2. The respondent then filed an application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. For quashment of the order passed by trial Court and High Court quashed the proceedings only against the respondent.
3. Inter alia, leave to appeal is granted to consider the following:-
(a) Whether, under the circumstances, High Court was justified to exercise jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. And quash the proceedings against the respondent, when the matter was fixed for recording the statement of respondent/accused?
(b) Whether the partial quashment was justified?
(c) Whether High Court totally ignored the evidence brought on record against the respondent?
4. The operation of impugned order is suspended. The matter be fixed for regular hearing at an early date.