Article 4, 2 (d) and Schedule Special Court, jurisdiction for embezzlement by a bank employee and the applicant of the schedule crime applicant, complainant bank employee / officer, misappropriation of various amounts in respect of different bank, embezzlement. Was accused of. The applicant was of the view that the special court established under the International Courts (Ordinance of Ordinance, 1984) did not have jurisdiction to confess the matter, that the applicant was the officer of the complaining bank and Was with him. The co-accused, who has been charged with misconduct, embezzlement and other misconduct, and upon inquiry by the bank, has returned a large sum of money to the applicant and thus has applied for his crime and The co-accused is confessed, therefore, committed the crimes committed. Banks' business will be credible through a special court established under Ordinance Three under the Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, or in relation to which such offenses were committed, to request special court jurisdiction. Pre-requisites for That crime should be a scheduled crime. That the crime should be in relation to the scheduled bank. And that the crime should be related to the bank's business. The present case met the criteria and conditions in which it was made clear that the special court had the necessary jurisdiction to prosecute any accused of such crime. And the crimes committed by the applicant brought him into the scope of the specified offense, in which case, the review was excluded.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
