ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 2009

Date order with signature of Judge

25^th November 2009.

M/s. Mehmood Alam Rizvi and Ali Nawaz Channa

Advocates for the appellant.

Mr. Aashiq Raza, DAG.

>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<

Mr. Mehmood Alam Rizvi, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant was neither named in the FIR nor he was named as accused person in the preliminary challan submitted by the Investigation Officer but rather was shown as a witness, However, at the time of submission of final challan, name of the appellant was included as accused person while no role was assigned to him on account of which his name was included as an accused person in the challan. He states that during trial of the case no evidence had come on record against the appellant but the learned trial Court without proper appreciation of evidence convicted and sentenced the appellant for R.I. of seven years whereas acquitted the main accused. He contends that no acquittal appeal has been filed against the acquittal of the main accused. He further contends that the appellant has remained on bail during trial of the case and only on passing of the judgment he was taken into custody. He requests that the sentence may be suspended as the appeal is likely to take time for its disposal.

It seems that under Section 10(1) of the Offence in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984 there is a bar of suspending sentence under section 426 Cr.P.C. but in the case of THE STATE V/S QAIM ALI SHAH (1992 SCMR 2192) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in exceptional cases an interim relief can be granted to a convicted person under the ordinance. The case of the appellant apparently seems to be of exceptional nature inasmuch as he was not named in the FIR and in the interim challan also in which he was included as a witness but in the final challan his name was included as accused. Yet again, as contended by the counsel for appellant that no evidence has come on the record connecting the appellant with the crime apparently is not seriously disputed by the learned D.A.G. for the purpose of the present application who also concedes to the grant of interim relief to the appellant on the ground of hardship too as his appeal is not likely to be heard and decided in near future. This being the state of case, we are inclined to grant interim relief to the appellant by way of granting him bial on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- (Rupees Two Hundred Thousand) and P.R. Bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court.

It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
Presiding Officer of the Banking Court is on leaves as he has gone to perform Haj and that the office of this Court may be directed to issue the release order. The request seems to be reasonable as such the same is granted.

J U D G E