' JAVED IQBAL, J.-- This petitiou for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 13-12- 2001 passed by learned Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, whereby Ehtesab appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed.
2. After having heard Malik Muhammad Qayyum, learned Advocate Supreme Court alongwith Mr. Abdul Karim Khan Kundi, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner as well as Mian Fasihul Mulk, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, NAB, scanning the entire record and perusing the judgment impugned, we are inclined to grant leave to appeal, inter alia, on the following points:--
(a) Whether judgment impugned is violative of the dictum as laid down in an unreported judgment, dated 23-4-2003 titled Haji Nasim-ur-Rehman v. The State in Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No,27 of 2001, wherein it was held as follows:-- "Considering the case from all angles and the salient features emerging from the instant case, we are of the view that it is fit case for interference. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, with the result that order, dated 19th of June, 2001 challenging the conviction and sentences awarded to petitioner under the NAB Ordinance by the Accountability Court of the Peshawar High Court is set aside with the result that petitioner's appeal shall be deemed to still pending before the Peshawar High Court.
'Petitioner is directed to surrender himself before the Peshawar High Court and his appeal shall be decided within one month. Similarly, the Accountability Court shall also decide the reference pending against the petitioner within 30 days positively from today."
(b) Whether the principles as laid down from time to time in various judicial pronouncements such as Chan Shah v. The Crown PLD 1956 FC 43; Amir v. State PLD 2004 Quetta 16; Bacha Said v. The State PLD 1978 SC 102; Muhammad Aslam v. The State 1972 SCMR 194; Hayat Bakhsh v. The State PLD 1981 SC 265; and Zahid Iqbal v. The State PLD 1991 SC 575 have been kept intact while deciding the case by learned Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, vide judgment impugned.
(c) Whether an authoritative judgment would be needed in view of the different case-law as enunciated in case titled Chan Shah v. The Crown PLD 1956 FC 43.
(d) Whether in view of the applicability of the Criminal Procedure Code in NAB cases the provisions as contemplated in section 419, Cr.P.C. Would be applicable concerning filing of appeal.
(e) Whether the absence of petitioner who admittedly was in U.K. For medical treatment can be equated to the "wilful evasion of process of law" as initiated after his departure from Pakistan.
(f) Whether the trial, in absentia, is in violation of the provisions as enumerated in Articles 4, 9 and 10 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, in the interest of justice, fairplay and equity.
(g) Whether the provisions as contained in section 31-A of the NAB Ordinance, 1999 are ultra vires to the provisions as contemplated in Articles 4, 9 and 10 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
' The above captioned petition is converted into appeal which may be fixed within a period of three weeks. The order dated 28-8-2003 passed by this Court whereby the sentence of petitioner was suspended and ad interim bail granted in the sum of Rupees ten lac with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court at Islamabad shall remain intact till disposal of this appeal.