1994 PLP 997 (MLD)

Through this Constitutional petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the F.I.R. No.32 of 1992 registered against him on 25-7-1992.

2. The matter was initiated on an application made by Muhammad Azeem respondent No.2 on 20-1-1992 before the Additional Director, Anti Corruption, Lahore who alleged therein that the petitioner had received a sum of Rs.15,000 from him by way of bribe on the assurance of getting his son Muhammad Arif employed as a peon in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Okara. However, subsequently he neither fulfilled his undertaking nor returned the amount to the applicant/respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 had submitted a similar application before the S.P. Okara on 19-8-1991 and before the Deputy Commissioner on 11-5-1992. On the application submitted before the Additional Director, Anti-Corruption, regular inquiry under orders of the competent authority was initially conducted by Ghulam Sabir Qureshi, Assistant Director (Complaint) and thereafter by Muhammad Hafeez, Assistant Director (Complaint-11). During the inquiry, the complainant as well as his witnesses substantiated the allegations against the petitioner whereupon a criminal case was formally registered against him vide F.I.R. No32 of 1992 dated 25-7-1992.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate-General at some length. Referring to the contents of the applications submitted by the respondent No.2 before the Deputy Commissioner and the Additional Director, the petitioner's learned counsel has urged that there is discrepancy in respect of the amount actually paid to the petitioner. The said discrepancy, per se is not sufficient to warrant quashment of the F.I.R. His argument that no cognizable offence is disclosed is also devoid of force. Prima facie, an offence under the provisions of section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is made out against the petitioner. The investigation of the case has been completed and final report under section 173 of the Cr.P.C. prepared by the Investigating Agency. The petitioner will have full opportunity to defend himself before the trial Court in accordance with the law.

4. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed. It is clarified that the observations made above are of tentative nature. The trial Court shall independently decide the case on merits in accordance with the taw without being influenced by the observations made in this order. N.H.Q./M-1432/L Petition dismissed.