1982 P Cr (PLP)

Ch. M. A Saleem for Petitioners. S. M. Zubair A. A.-G. for the State. Writ Petitions bearing No. 9044/80 filed by Muhammad Shafi and 9045/80 filed by Abdul Latif are being disposed of by this order as the same legal proposition is involved. In both the writ petitions, prayers have been made that investigation conducted by the respondents and steps taken by the respondents may be declared as without lawful authority and jurisdiction and they be restrained from investigating the matter in question.

2. The cases registered against the two petitioners are being investi gated by the Police Officers attached with the Anti-Smuggling (Rice and Paddy) Mobile Team, Multan.

3. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Police Officers attached with Anti-Smuggling (Rice and Paddy) Mobile Team were neither S H. Os nor Incharge of Police Stations and thus they were not competent to investigate the cases against them ; that if a Police Officer is transferred to some other department, he can act only in accordance with the rules framed by that Department ; that Secretary Food bad no authority to depute a Police Officer attached with Anti-Smuggling (Rice and Paddy) Mobile Team, Multan, to investi gate the cases against them ;and that the provisions of section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, were not being complied with.

4. Comments have been received to the effect that on the report of Audit Party, a case of embezzlement/misappropriation amounting to Rs. 30 lacs had been registered at Multan against the officials of the Food Department including the two petitioners ; that the case was being investigated by Police Officers attached with Anti-Smuggling (Rice and Paddy) Mobile Team, Multan, in accordance with the pro visions of section 551, Cr. P. C. and Superintendent Police, who is higher in rank to S. H. O. was competent to investigate the case ; that Anti-Smuggling (Rice and Paddy) Mobile Team was under the adminis trative control of Inspector-General of Police and the officers retained their lien in their parent department ; that requisite permission had been obtained from Magistrate 1 st Class and as such, the cases could be investigated by the Police Officers attached with the said Mobile Team. Aurang Zeb Khan, Superintendent Police, Anti-Smuggling, Food Directorate, Punjab (respondent No. 5) has filed an affidavit stating that he was a member of Police Force under section 8 of the Police Act, which empowered him to investigate into cognizable offences under the Criminal Procedure Code and Police Act; that he was a member of the Police Cell, which was under the administrative control of Inspector General of Police ; that his area of jurisdiction was Multan District as well as Punjab; that his subordinate Police Officers obtained prior permission in writing of the Ilaqa Magistrate, Multan, before proceedings with the investigation of the cases and thus they were legally competent to investi gate the cases.

5. The arguments have been considered. The Police Officers attached with the Anti-Smuggling (Rice and Paddy) Mobile Team had not lost their status as Police Officers. They were only attached with the Food Directorate. It is provided under section 551, Cr. P. C. that Police Officers superior in rank to an officer incharge of police station may exercise the same powers throughout the local area ;o which they are appointed, as may be exercised by such Officer within the limits of his station. Respondent No. 5 being superior in rank to the incharge of police station, was competent to investigate the two cases Without an order of a Magistrate 1st Class, a Police Officer below the rank of Inspector of Police, cannot investigate any offence punishable under any of the sections of Pakistan Penal Code mentioned in section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 or any offence punishable under section 5 of the said Act. But in these cases, the Police Officers below the rank of Inspector have obtained the requisite permission from the Ilaqa Magistrate and thus they can legally conduct the investi gation. Both the writ petitions have no merits, which are dismissed Petitions dismissed.