2002 PLP 304 (MLD)

We have also heard Mr. Khursheed Hashmi, Dy.A.‑G. on behalf of the State, and Mr. Muhammad Anwar, Tariq, Deputy Prosecutor‑General, for the NAB. Mr. Khursheed Hashmi conceded to the prayer of the applicant/ accused. However, Mr. Muhammad Anwar Tariq states that the revisional powers of this Court are expressly taken away by Ordinance XXXV of 2001. Therefore, the present revision application is not maintainable in law. He further states that, in view of the letter dated 6‑9‑2001, addressed by Dr. Ata‑ur‑Rehman to the Additional Medical Superintendent, Civil Hospital, Karachi the applicant/accused may approach the trial Court for further orders in the matter. It will be pertinent to reproduce, hereinbelow, the amendent introduced in section 32 of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 by Ordinance No.XXXV of 2001. "Amendment of section 32, Ordinance XVIII of 1999.‑‑In the said Ordinance, in section 32,‑‑ (i) in subsection (a), for the full stop at the end a colon shall be substituted and thereafter, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely: Provided that no appeal shall lie against any interlocutory order of the Court,' (ii) for subsection (c), the following shall be substituted, namely: '(c) No revision shall lie against any interlocutory order of the Court unless the Court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally: Provided that where a person makes an application for revision under this subsection, he shall, in support of such application, furnish copies of the reference, documents and order of the Court and the High Court shall dispose of such application within thirty days without calling for the record of the Court: Provided further that such application shall be made within ten days of the decision of the Court, which shall provide a copy of such decision within three days thereof', and (iii) subsection (d) shall be omitted. " A plain reading of the above provision of law clearly shows that the powers of revision have been given in appropriate cases and have not been taken away altogether. The impugned order was passed on 13‑8‑2001 whereas the letter sent by Associate Professor, Civil Hospital, Karachi, is dated 6‑9‑2101. In the impugned order, the trial Court has itself issued direction for examination and treatment of the applicant/accused under intimation to that Court. In case, as reported, the facilities are not available at Civil Hospital, Karachi, the fact may be reported to the trial Court, as directed, for further orders. There is no occasion for the present revision and the applicant may approach the trial Court for further relief. The revision application stands disposed of alongwith the listed application. H.B.T./I‑43/K Order accordingly.