2004 PLP 1201 (MLD)

This single order will dispose of Writ Petition No.4393 of 2003, filed by Zia‑ul‑Ghani, Writ Petition No.4463 of 2003, filed by Abdul Jabbar and Writ Petition No.67 of 2004 filed by Muhammad Ilyas Akhta r jointly as in all the writ petitions similar questions of facts and law are involved and pendency of the inquiry before the Anti‑Corruption Department has been challenged on the ground that earlier on the same facts respondent No.4 got lodged F.I.R. No.28 on 18‑4‑2003 under sections 419/420/467/468/471, P.P.C. at Police Station Civil Lines District Sahiwal against all the three petitioners and other accused. The allegation leveled in the said F.I.R was that respondent No.4 was owner of the land situated in Chak No.88/A/6R Ratti Tibbi Tehsil and District Sahiwal and forged General Power of Attorney was prepared which was registered with Sub‑Registrar, Lahore and on the basis of these forged General Power of. Attorney, sale‑deed was further executed. According to the complainant, the fraud has been committed by the petitioners and their co‑accused. The petitioners submit that the investigation is now being conducted by Range Crime Branch, Multan and bail before arrest of the petitioners has already been confirmed vide order dated 13‑9‑2003. The grievance voiced by the petitioners is that during pendency of the investigation of the abovesaid case on another application moved by the complainant the Anti‑Corruption Department has initiated the inquiry under the Anti‑Corruption Establishment Rules 1985, which has been challenged through these writ petitions on the principle of double jeopardy.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in the presence of earlier F.I.R., on the same subject second F.I.R. cannot be registered, hence the initiation of inquiry by the Anti‑Corruption Establishment is illegal and without lawful authority as the accused cannot be vexed twice on, the same allegation. Relies upon 1981 SCMR 1101 and PLD 1999 Lah. 109 to contend that F.I.R, registered with the local police against the public servants is justifiable and it does not matter whether the case was not registered with the Anti‑Corruption Establishment.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and also gone through the contents of these petitions as well as Annexures attached therewith. Initiation of inquiry is not an adverse action. It is even not denied that on submission of application to it, the Anti‑Corruption Department under the Punjab Anti‑Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985 is bound to hold an inquiry to ascertain the identity of the complainant/informer and genuiness of the complaint/information and only thereafter the case is registered and investigation conducted if any offence falling in the schedule is prima facie found to have been committed. Thereafter the Anti‑Corruption Department with the permission of the higher authorities can recommend for judicial/departmental action or drop the case. In the present case the matter is still at early stage and only an inquiry has been initiated. Mere apprehension of the petitioners that second F.I.R. will be registered against the petitioners is not sufficient to issue writ against the respondents. Even otherwise, there is no bar in law for registration of the F.I.R. by the Anti‑Corruption Department relating to the offences mentioned in the Schedule even in the F.I.R. has been lodged by the local police as Article 13 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code will only come in the field if the accused persons after prosecution have been convicted or acquitted of the same offence. Admittedly the accused/petitioners in the F.I.R. have even not been tried so far. Hence the principle of double jeopardy does not attract in the present case.

4. In this case only inquiry has been initiated by the Anti‑Corruption Establishment under the relevant rules on the application submitted to it. So far no case has been registered. This Court cannot direct the Anti‑Corruption Establishment at limine stage to stop the inquiry and not to register the case if some cognizable offence within their jurisdiction is found to have been committed. I have intentionally avoided to comment upon the merits of this case lest it may prejudice the case of either party in the appropriate proceedings. The main emphasis of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have already been admitted to pre‑arrest bail m the earlier F.I.R. and if the" second F.I.R. is registered by the Anti‑Corruption Establishment they will be bound to move for the same relief again. I have perused bail granting order dated 13‑9‑2003. The petitioners have been allowed pre- arrest bail merely on technical ground that the prosecution failed to, produce any order that the matter was going to be taken up by the Anti‑Corruption Establishment. The merits of the case were not touched. Be that as it may, it is the discretion of the Court to exercise in either way if the case is registered and the petitioners moved for their bail, but this Court cannot give any direction at this stage.

5. For the foregoing reasons I do not find any merit in all the three I writ petitions, which are dismissed. H.B.T./Z‑8/L Petitions dismissed.