2001 PLP 1749 (YLR)

(g) Computer with all necessary appliances/attachment (h) Electric Heater. (i) Sitting in police van next to the driver. That despite the said facilities having been granted to the applicant by the said Courts, the applicant is being denied the said facilities by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 with mala fides intention and ulterior motives to victimize and torture the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant during the arguments has placed on record photostat copy of an order, dated 17-3-2001 passed by the Accountability Court-I, Attock Fort. It indicates that the reference has been adjourned sine die and case would be again fixed for hearing. Therefore, the applicant may be produced at Karachi in the abovementioned cases. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the famous case of Benazir Bhutto v. State reported in 1999 SCMR 759 (766) and another photo copy (unreported case) of Writ Petition No. 13311 of 1997 from Lahore jurisdiction Muhammad Nawaz Tiwana v. Federation of Pakistan and others. Another photo copy of order in case of State v. Ch. Mukhtiar and others. Mr. Raja Qureshi, Advocate -General, Sindh has placed on record a letter, dated 16th March, 2001 which is reproduced as under:-- "Chief Executive's Secretariat II National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad No. 1(50) Prose/NAB/2000 Dated 16th March, 2001. To Mr. M. Anwar Tariq, Deputy Prosecutor General Accountability, Regional Accountability Bureau, Karachi Subject: Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.89 of 2001 Asif Ali Zardari v. Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Interior Pakistan, Secretariat Islamabad and 3 others. (1) We have received the copy of the letter which Raja Qureshi, learned Advocate-General, Sindh addressed to the Secretary Government of Sindh, Home Department and copy addressed to the NAB. (2) Kindly assist the learned Advocate -General in the above matter. Please inform him that presently there are two references pending against Mr. Asif Ali Zardari, one in the Accountability Court at Rawalpindi and the other in Accountability Court at Attock Fort. The case in the Accountability Court at Rawalpindi is to come up on 20-3-2001 on which date statement of Asif Ali Zardari under section 342, Cr.P.C: shall be recorded. Other case against Asif Ali Zardari in the Accountability Court at Attock Fort is fixed for 17-3-2001, it must be emphasised before the Court that the reference against Asif Ali Zardari has been delayed extraordinary because Zardari employed all means not to be removed from the jurisdiction of Sindh High Court. However, if he is allowed to remain in Islamabad the reference in Accountability Court at Rawalpindi is likely to be concluded in a couple of weeks. (3) It may also be submitted before the Court that Zardari is admitted in P.I.M.S. Hospital, Islamabad which is one of the best hospitals in the country. He is receiving all the necessary treatment. The doctors have certified him to be fit to attend trial in Rawalpindi and Attock Fort. In so far as the amenities which he enjoyed in Karachi are concerned, it may be submitted that it is for the Court at Rawalpindi and Attock Fort to order those amenities and the prosecution has never objected to any lawful amenities being granted to him. (Sd.) Raja Muhammad Bashir, Prosecutor General Accountability Copy with compliments to Raja Qureshi; the learned Advocate General, Sindh. " I have gone through the case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, which has no relevance in the present case. At the very outset learned Advocate-General, Sindh has raised the following objections:-- (1) The trial Court in Karachi had possessed the machinery to enforce his attendance. (2) This Court is not the appellate authority of the Accountability Court-I, Attock and Accountability Court, Islamabad, which are functioning in Punjab. (3) Object of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. (4) Accused has no recourse available to chose forum of his choice to attach priority of trial amongst the different cases in Sindh and Punjab. (5) Prosecution undertakes not to proceed with the cases pending at Karachi till the references are finally decided by the Accountability Courts. (6) Inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised by this Court by directing the Accountability Court not to proceed with the trial at Rawalpindi and Attock Fort and this Bench has limited jurisdiction to the territory of Sindh. (7) The correspondence made by the authorities suggests that the references will be concluded in a couple of weeks. (8) Mr. Zardari is admitted in P.I.M.S. which is one of the best Hospitals in the country and all medical facilities are being received and all facilities/ amenities, which he enjoyed in Karachi, may be prayed and it is for the Courts at Rawalpindi and Attock Fort to order/extend such facilities to the applicant and prosecution has never objected to any lawful amenities being granted to him. (9) Present application is not maintainable and not warranted and liable to be dismissed. Messrs Muhammad Zaki, learned Dy. A.-G. and Mr. Anwer Tariq, Deputy Prosecutor-General, have adopted the same arguments advanced by the learned A.-G., Sindh. I have considered the pleas raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties' and examined the material placed on record. It is admitted position that this Court is not Appellate Authority in Reference cases which are being tried by the Accountability Courts at Attock and Rawalpindi, therefore, this Court cannot direct the Accountability Court not to proceed with the said trials, which are at the conclusion stage and there is possibility to conclude it in a couple of weeks. The applicant is admitted in P.I.M.S. Hospital. Islamabad, which is one of the best hospitals in the country and he is receiving all the necessary treatment. The doctors have certified him to be fit to attend the trial in Rawalpindi and Attock Fort. So far as the object of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is advantageous to reproduce the section 561-A, Cr.P.C. as under:-- "561-A Saving, of inherent power of High Court.

Nothing in this Code shall, be deemed to limit or affect the , inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. " In view of the above, the inherent' jurisdiction under section 561-A, can be invoked and exercised against the revisional order of the subordinate Courts, or to quash any proceedings initiated as an abuse of Court to warrant interference or any order passed by Investigating Officer or by any Court subordinate to such High Court. In view of the circumstances, stated above, I am of the view that the present application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and Accountability Courts at Rawalpindi and Attock Fort cannot be directed not to proceed with such trials against the applicant. . Resultantly, finding no merits in the instant application, the same is dismissed. After conclusion of such references the' applicant may be produced before such Courts at Karachi, where five cases are' pending for trials. On 27-3-2001 by a short order, this Criminal Miscellaneous Application was dismissed and the above are the reasons for the same. H.B.T./A-233/K Application dismissed.