2004 PLP 506 (SCMR)

SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.‑‑‑Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, dated i3‑1‑2003, passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 102 of 2000 and Criminal Miscellaneous Applications Nos.406, 407, 408, 414 and 460 of 2000.

2. Precisely stated, case 'of the prosecution appears to be that on 7‑11‑1999 the S.H.O. Police Station Clifton, Karachi, received a written complaint (available at pages 45‑47 of the paper book) from S.P. Noor Ahmad Pechooho of Crime Branch Sindh, Karachi, through D.S.P. Malik Rab Nawaz, levelling serious allegations of embezzlement against the petitioner and his co‑accused in the Government funds. After registration of the F.I.R. petitioner Raja Amir Muhammad alongwith Arshad Mehmood, Inayat Ali and Zaheer Behzad was arrested, and on completion of investigation challan under sections 409/261/262/263/34 was sent to the Court of Special Judge Anti‑Corruption (Provincial) Karachi. Petitioner filed an application under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. in the trial Court, praying for his acquittal solely on the ground that the offence' with which he had been charged was a scheduled offence under Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958 and according to the provisions of Sindh Enquiries and Anti‑Corruption Rules, 1993, only Anti‑Corruption Establishment could register and investigate a criminal case against a public servant and that the local police had no jurisdiction to register or investigate any such case. Vide order dated 18‑8‑2000 the trial Court dismissed the aforesaid application. The aforementioned order was challenged by virtue of criminal miscellaneous application, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 13‑1‑2003.

3. Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, learned Advocate‑on‑Record for the petitioner strenuously contended that the police of Crime Branch had wrongly registered the case against the petitioner, because only the Anti‑Corruption Establishment can register a criminal case against the petitioner/public servant with prior approval of the Competent Authority; that the registration of criminal case against public servant and investigation thereof by local police is equivalent to violation of the relevant provisions of law; and that the impugned judgment of the learned High Court is not sustainable in law.

4. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and minutely perused the material available on record. We have also perused the judgments passed by the trial Court as well as the learned High Court. We found that while rejecting the application of the petitioner the trial Court‑ had taken a view that under subsection (i) of section 4 of Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act. 1958 a Special Judge has jurisdiction to take cognizance of any offence committed within his territorial limits and triable under the said Act: upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence, or upon a report of such facts made by any police officer, and since the trial Court has already taken cognizance of the alleged offence on the challan submitted against the petitioner by the D.S.P., which is virtually a report of facts constituting the offence committed by the petitioner, therefore contravention of rule 11 of Sindh Enquiries and Anti‑Corruption Rules 1993 in view of provisions of subsection (1) of section 4 of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, shall not affect or vitiate the trial. In this view of the matter, the learned High Court has rightly maintained the order of the learned trial Court by dismissing the application of the petitioner. After carefully scanning the reasons given by the learned High Court, which are based on the law laid down by this Court in the case of Abdul Latif v. G. M. Paracha and others 1981 SCMR 1101, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment is well reasoned and within the parameters of the law and does not call for interference by this Court.

5. For the foregoing facts, circumstances and reasons, we find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused. N.H.Q./A‑4/S Petition dismissed.