2005 PLP 1329 (YLR)

The facts of the case are that the case F.I.R. No.697 was registered against the petitioner by respondent No.1 on 2-11-2002 under sections 409/420/468 and 471, P.P.C. The petitioner is seeking quashment of the said F.I.R. mainly on the ground that respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction in the matter and that the entire proceedings commenced by him are coram non judice.

2. The petitioner has placed reliance upon rule 8 of the Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985 and contends that the petitioner who is a public servant, the registration of a case in respect of a scheduled offence, exclusively falls within the jurisdiction of Anti-Corruption Establishment and that the Local Police does not figure anywhere in the said scheme. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the case of Muhammad Sharif v. S.H.O. PLD 1999 Lahore 692; Muhammad Afzal v. Muhammad Siddiq 1992 MLD 311 and Aasia v. The State PLD 1996 Lah.

45. He has also relied upon the case of Muhammad Iqbal, A.S.-I. v. S.H.O. 2000 PCr.LJ 1924 for the same proposition.

3. On the other hand, the learned A.A.-G. for the State controverted this contention of the petitioner and submitted that the registration of cases at the ordinary police station even in case of scheduled offence was not illegal as section 8 of the West Pakistan Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance, 1961 had provided that the provisions of the said Ordinance were in addition to and not in derogation to any other law for the time being in force. It is contended that all provisions of Criminal Procedure Code were kept intact. It is stated that there was no jurisdictional defect in lodging of the F.I.R. against the petitioner and that there was no force in the quashment proceedings. The learned A.A.-G. has also placed reliance upon the case of Mirza Muhammad Iqbal v. Government of Punjab PLD 1999 Lahore 109 and submits that the view expressed in this judgment has been upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court in C.P. S.L.A. No.1557-L of 1998.

4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.

5. Mumtaz Khan petitioner is the Secretary Union Council, Chak Beli Khan Tehsil and District Rawalpindi. Tehsil Nazim suspended the petitioner vide order dated 21-10-2002. It was alleged that despite the order of suspension from service, the petitioner collected 400 bags of wheat for the said Union Council although he had no authority to do the same. It was alleged that the bags of wheat were received with a criminal intention to misappropriate the same. It was on the basis of this complaint that S.H.O., Police Station, Waris Khan respondent No.1 registered a case against the petitioner vide F.I.R. No.697, dated 2-11-2002 under sections 409/420/468/471, P.P.C.

6. The point of law canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not bear scrutiny when viewed in the light of section 8, West Pakistan Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance, 1961. According to this provision of law, the provisions of Ordinance are in addition and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. This would clearly show that the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code are meant to be kept intact. This being the position, rules 6, 7 and 8 of Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985 cannot be interpreted to have an overriding effect upon the provisions of section 154, Cr.P.C. The Rules of 1985 cannot supersede, superimpose or be construed in excess all the parameters laid down in the parent Ordinance viz. section 8 of the Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance.

7. This view is fully supported by the case of Mirza Muhammad Iqbal and others v. Government of Punjab PLD 1999 Lahore 109 and another D.B. judgment of this Court titled Shafqat Hussain and others v. Malik Sarfraz, Inspector Circle Officer ACE Hafizabad and another 2000 PCr.LJ 1995.

8. The learned A.A.-G. had further submitted that the judgment rendered in case of Mirza Muhammad Iqbal (supra) has been upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court which deciding C.P.S.L.A. No.1557-L of 1998.

9. In view of the foregoing it is concluded that the provisions of rules, 6, 7 and 8 of the A.C.E. rules, 1985 being subordinate legislation cannot control or override section 8 of the West Pakistan A.C.E. Ordinance or section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

10. Resultantly, there is no force in this petition which is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./M-960/L Petition dismissed.