2007L81 (PLP)

UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.

The petitioner is an accused in case F.I.R. No.421 dated 29-10-2004 under section 409, P.P.C. registered at Police Station City Mianwali. The investigation into the case by the police was underway when F.I.R. No.11 dated 28-8-2005 A was registered with Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment Mianwali ("ACE"). The challan by the ACE was finalized on 17-10-2006 and has since been duly submitted before the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks quashment of the F.I.R. registered by the ACE on the legal ground that under the law only one F.I.R. can be lodged to report the commission of a crime. In this regard he relies on the judgment of a learned Division Bench of this Court reported in Ghulam Siddique v. S.H.O., D.G. Khan and 8 others PLD 1979 Lah.

263. The said precedent observes as follows: "It is quite obvious from the above that the primary purpose of the F.I.R. is to inform about the commission of a cognizable offence, which a police officer is empowered to investigate under section 156, Cr.P.C. The police officer receiving that information may question the informant to find out his source of information about the names of the offenders and the witnesses and whether the informant himself was an eye-witness as laid down in Rule 21.1(4). All other informations with regard to that occurrence coming out later in point of time have to be taken down as statements of those persons before the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. The version given by Ghulam Siddiq, therefore, should have been considered as a statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. only. The order to register a second F.I.R. in that situation, was not justified in law, even if there was a concession made on the part of the State."

3. In the present case the F.I.R. registered with the ACE restates the factual contents of the first F.I.R. and merely adds the additional offence under section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The petitioner cannot have justifiable grievance against the second F.I.R. because scheduled offences against public servants can only be inquired and investigated by the ACE. This is the statutory mandate under section 3 of the West Pakistan Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance, 1961 read with the Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985. The investigation by the Police under the first F.I.R. was never completed nor any challan was submitted. As the petitioner is a public servant therefore the matter stood transferred to ACE, Mianwali. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that rather than recording F.I.R. the proper course of action for the ACE was to take charge of the investigation file under the first F.I.R. and to continue and complete that investigation. This contention is misconceived. The registration of an F.I.R. in the record of the ACE is a sine qua non under the provisions of the aforesaid Ordinance of 1961 and the 1985 Rules for an inquiry or investigation to be conducted by the ACE in that case.

4. Consequently, the observation made by the learned Division Bench in the foregoing precedent pertaining to a changed version of facts of an occurrence being reported through a second F.I.R. does not apply to the present case. Here the later F.I.R. was recorded under requirement of law and, in any case, there was no change in the factual narrative about the commission of the offence.

5. The instant petition seeks the quashment of the F.I.R. lodged by the ACE solely on the aforesaid technical ground. This is inconsequential in the light of above discussion. Accordingly, in the absence a legal bar to the registration of the F.I.R. by the ACE and the non-disclosure of the other legal grounds for quashment of F.I.R., there is no basis for the relief .prayed in this petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. N. H. Q ./Z-30/L Petition dismissed.