Offences in respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984

S. 4 — Offences u/s 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 A.P.C. were triable by the Special Court constituted under the aforementioned Ordinance promulgated in Pakistan in 1984 which was later on adapted in Azad Jammu and Kashmir — After enforcement of said law, the Additional Sub-Judge Magistrate Ist Class Mirpur had no jurisdiction as the order of acquittal could only be recorded by a Court competent to try the same. HBL v. Zulfiqar Ali Malik 1999 SCR 501 (B)
S. 6 — Scheduled offences have been made exclusively triable by a Special Court set up under the Ordinance — Scheduled offences include Ss. 409, 467, 468, 471 — Under this section the punishment provided in the P.P.C. for scheduled offences shall stand enhanced for the purposes of Ordinance — Higher sentences are enumerated in the second schedule. Fazal-ur-Rehman v. Muhammad Hanif Bukhari & others 1995 SCR 248 (A)
Sub-section (6) of section 5 and S. 10 — A combined reading of the two sections shows that applicability of S. 497 CR. P.C. to the cases under the Ordinance has not been excluded but that section has been made applicable with material change that the accused shall not be released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of a scheduled offence. Fazal-ur-Rehman v. Muhammad Hanif Bukhari & others 1995 SCR 248 (C)
S. 6(2) & Sched. II — Criminal Procedure Code (v of 1898), Section 417 — Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 409/419/420/467 & 468 — Appeal against acquittal — Transfer of case to Special Court — High Court, on appeal against acquittal of accused, set aside order of acquittal and remanded case to Special Court constituted under Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984 — Validity — Case against accused was registered in 1977 when neither the said Ordinance was in force nor any Special Court was constituted — Punishment for some of the offences mentioned in Sched. II to the said Ordinance, under which accused had been charged had been enhanced and some other substantive charges had also been made — Provisions of said Ordinance were not merely of procedural nature justifying trial by Special Court, but were of substantive nature and were harsher than provisions of ordinary law — High Court, in circumstances, was not legally correct in remanding case to Special Court when some of the provisions thereof were much stringent than ordinary law. Muhammad Anwar Baig v. The State 2000 SCR 399 (A)
S. 10 — S. 498 of the Cr. P.C. has been excluded from the cases under the Ordinance which means that the High Court or the Court of Sessions are not authorised to grant anticipatory bail to a person who is accused of an offence under the Ordinance — However, the applicability of S. 497 Cr.P.C. has not been excluded. Fazal-ur-Rehman v. M. Hanif Bukhari & others 1995 SCR 248 (B)