' SH. RIAZ AHMAD, C.J.---The appellant/petitioners were proceeded against on a reference filed against them under the Ehtesab Act, 1997 (Act No,IX of 1997), hereinafter referred to as the Act, before an Ehtesab Bench constituted under the said Act. In course of the proceedings, the petitioners moved an application under sections 265-K and 249-A, of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying therein that the proceedings against them be quashed and they be acquitted because no offence had been committed by them. This application was heard by the Ehtesab Bench and vide order dated 16-6-1998 the said application was dismissed.The aforesaid order was challenged in this Court by way of filing Criminal Petition No,106 of 1998. Vide order dated 28-7-1998 leave was granted to consider as to whether or not an offence under section 3(1) of the Act had been committed.
2. Subsequently, Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No,85 of 1998 was preferred by the petitioners for stay of the proceedings before the Ehtesab Bench. A Bench of this Court heard the contentions in support of the prayer and against it and vide order dated 11-8-1998 this Court declined to stay the proceedings but directed that the final order shall not be announced. It was further ordered by this Court that the appeal should be fixed for hearing after summer vacation of 1998. On another application filed by one of the respondents seeking exemption for herpresence in Court, this Court directed that the appeals should be fixed on the reopening of the Court after winter vacation of 1998. Criminal Petition No,187 of 1998 and Criminal Petition No,202 of 1998 involving interpretation of same questions were filed by Mr. Abdul Hafiz Lakhoo, Advocate and those petitions were tagged with this appeal. All these matters came up for hearing on 11-3-1999, but on the request of Mr. Lakhoo the same were adjourned to a date in the month of May, 1999. In the year 2000, notices were issued to the parties for hearing of these cases on 12-9-2000 but the State sought an adjournment. On 12-9-2000, another adjournment was sought on behalf of the State. The matters were again fixed for hearing and on the request of the appellant/petitioners they were again adjourned to a date in office. On 5-8-2002 an application was moved by the Prosecutor General Accountability for early hearing of these cases. Hence the cases were fixed for hearing on 13-8- 2002. The counsel for the appellant sought adjournment and thus the Court directed the fixation of these cases in the month of September, 2002. It was also directed that in case the main counsel is not available, alternate arrangement shall be made by the appellant. It was also directed that no further adjournment shall be allowed. On 25-9-2002, Mr. Farooq H. Naek again sought an adjournment and the cases were adjourned for period of two weeks. On 9-9-2003 Mr. Farooq H.
Naek, counsel for the appellant stated that he has not been able to prepare the brief and thus sought an adjournment. He was accommodated and the case was adjourned to 11-9-2003. On 10- 9-2003 this Court'received an application, for adjournment alongwith a certificate of illness of the learned counsel stating therein that he was suffering from backache. The cases were thus adjourned to 12-9-2003 and the following order was passed:-- "It is stated that Mr. Farooq H. Naek, learned counsel for the appellants is unwell. Mr. Abdul Hafeez Lakhoo, Advocate Supreme Court is also not present. In fact, this matter is being delayed on one pretext or the other. In this view of the matter, we adjourn this case to 12-9-2003 and in case learned counsel for the appellants does not appear tomorrow, the interim order shall be vacated."
3. Today, when the cases came up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. Mr. Lakhoo appeared in Court and stated that he represents the petitioners in the connected petitions (Criminal. Petitions Nos.187 and 202 of 1998) and is not the counsel for the appellant. It is obvious from the above history of adjournments in these cases that the learned counsel for the appellant wants to prolong the matter and adjournments have been sought since 1998 to delay the hearing of the cases. We have been informed that the proceedings in the reference before the Accountability Court have been concluded and the judgment cannot be announced on account of the stay order granted by this Court.
' In this view of the matter, we have no option but to recall the order restraining the trial Court from announcing the final judgment.