2011 PCr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ANWAR — Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR ANTI-CORRUPTION, SARGODHA and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2011 PCr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ANWAR — Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR ANTI-CORRUPTION, SARGODHA and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PCr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PCr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PCr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ANWAR — Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR ANTI-CORRUPTION, SARGODHA and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Saeed Hassan for Petitioner.
- Jawad Hassan, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 409
Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199
Constitutional petition
Criminal breach of trust by Public Servant and corruption
Quashing of F.I.R.
Investigation had proved that accused along with co-accused received amount in connection with the registries; and when their fraud was disclosed, they deposited said amount in the Government Treasury
Accused having been found guilty of the offence, judicial action was recommended to be taken against him by the Enquiry Officer
Investigation in the case had been completed and the challan had been submitted to the competent court
High Court, in exercise of powers under Art.199 of Constitution, could not assume the role of an Investigator or substitute the findings of guilt or innocence of accused recorded by the Investigating Officer
Not only from the bare perusal of F.I.R., but also from the deposit of embezzled amount in the Treasury by accused, prima facie, established a cognizable offence
However, if accused felt that prosecution had not sufficient incriminating material against him to prove his guilt, he could approach Trial Court for seeking his acquittal
Any interference by High Court would certainly tantamount to stifling the normal course of law, which was not the mandate of law, under which constitutional petition had been filed
Constitutional petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, J.
Through the instant petition the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR. No. 73 of 2009, dated 4-9-2009, registered under section 409, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention Corruption Act, 1947, in Police Station, Anti-Corruption Establishment. Sargodha, in which the allegation against the petitioner and three other co-accused is that they while posted as Registry Moharar, Revenue Department, Sargodha, indulged in misappropriation of Rs.3.00.000 by getting printed the Corporation Fee from a local press.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not committed any offence and there is no evidence of receiving or misappropriating any public money by the petitioner. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner has already been punished by the department as his two increments have been withheld. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner cannot be punished twice according to law and proceeding further with the aforesaid F.I.R. would amount to the abuse of the process of law.
3. From the report and parawise comments submitted by respondent No.1 it is revealed that during the course of investigation, it was proved that the petitioner and his co-accused had received Rs.1,37,315 on 17-3-2008 in connection with the registries, and when their fraud was disclosed, they deposited the said amount in the Govt. Treasury on 19-5-2009. The petitioner having been found guilty of the offence, judicial action was recommended to be taken against the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer. The investigation has been completed and the challan submitted to the concerned Court.
4. The High Court in the exercise of powers under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 cannot assume the rote of an investigator or substitute the finding of guilt or innocence of any accused recorded by the investigating officer. The challan has already been submitted in the trial Court. Not only from the bare perusal of the F.I.R., but also from the deposit of the embezzled amount in the Govt. Treasury by the petitioner and other co-accused prima facie, a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. However, if the petitioner feels that the prosecution has not sufficient incriminating material against him to prove his guilt, he may approach the learned trial Court for seeking his acquittal. Any interference by this Court at this stage would certainly tantamount to stifling the normal course of law, which is not the mandate of law, under which the instant petition has been filed.
5. In view of what has been discussed above. I do not find any merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./M-667/L Petition dismissed.