P L D 1996 Lahore 454 (PLP)

Mehboob Ali petitioner has challenged the registration of and prayed for quashment of case F. I.R. No. 190/95 dated 1‑8‑1995 under section 420/468/470/471/161, P.P.C. and section 5 of Act 11 of 1947 registered at Police Station City Jalalpur Pirwala, District Multan.

2. Muhammad Shafi. and Jabbar Din respondents Nos. 3 and 4 presented written application on 1‑8‑1995 before S.H.O., P.S. Jalalpur Pirwala for registration of a criminal case against petitioner Mehboob Ali, a Revenue Patwari of Village Chak No.62‑M, Tehsil Jalalpur Pirwala, District Multan.it was mentioned in the application that Mahboob Ali Patwari demanded Rs.80,000 as illegal gratification from said Muhammad Shafi and Jabbar Din on the pretext of allotting 100 Kanals of land to each of them and received the same in his own house in the presence of Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Boota and Subey Khan, one year prior to the presentation of said application. Allegedly Mahboob Ali petitioner prepared fictitious Khasra, Girdawari for Kharif, I and Rabi 1994 in the names of Muhammad Shafi and Jabbar Din. As a matter of fact the land was never allotted in the names of complainants and Mahboob Ali accused/petitioner fraudulently received Rs.80,000 as bribe by misusing his official capacity and prepared bogus/fictitious Revenue Record and thereby committed certain cognizable offences mentioned in F.

1. R. No. 190/95.

3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that S.H.O., P.S. City Jalalpur Pirwala was not authorised to register a case against a public servant and that the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner are scheduled offences which are exclusively to be investigated by the Anti‑Corruption Establishment constituted under section 3 of the West Pakistan Anti‑Corruption Establishment Ordinance, 1961. 4. 1 have considered the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully.

5. The investigation is almost complete and the &H.O., P.S. City Jalalpur Pirwala has prepared a report under section 173, Cr.P.C. dated 12‑10‑1995 in order to submit the challan before the Court. Under section 3 of the West Pakistan Anti‑Corruption Establishment Ordinance, 1961, the Government has been empowered to establish Anti‑Corruption Establishment. The said sections of the Pakistan Penal Code under which the impugned F.I.R. was got registered are undoubtedly scheduled offences. The said offences committed by a public servant jointly with other persons are to be tried and investigated in accordance with the provisions of said Ordinance and the Rules made thereunder. Rule 6 of the Punjab Anti‑Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985 provides that preliminary inquiries and investigation shall be initiated by the Establishment against public servants on a complaint received from the. Government, Head of the Department or other reliable sources. Under Rule 7, a Deputy Director or an officer of or above his rank has been empowered to initiate preliminary inquiries in order to ascertain the identity of the, complainant or informer and genuineness of complaint/information. Rule 8 of the said Rules deals with the registration of case against public servants, and any other person who commits offences jointly with public servants. This Rule provides that criminal cases shall be registered by the Establishment under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and under such sections of Pakistan Penal Code, as have been set forth in the Schedule to the Ordinance. According to ' this Rule a criminal case shall be registered against public servant under a written order of officer of the Establishment mentioned in sub‑clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub‑rule (2). The case against the public servant in BPS I to 16 according to this rule can be registered under written orders of an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Director and against public servants in BPS‑17 and 18 under the orders of an Additional Director and against civil servants in BPS‑19 and above, by a Director. Rule 15 provides that the case after registration could be dropped in the circumstances mentioned therein. Admittedly the petitioner, a Revenue Patwari, is a, public servant and close scrutiny of the relevant provision of law as discussed above, leaves no doubt that the case against the petitioner could not have been registered except under the orders of the officer mentioned in Rule 8 after holding preliminary investigation. In this view of the matter, the registration of case through F.I.R. No.190/95 under sections 420/467/468/470/471/161, P.P.C. and section 5 of Act 11 ot 1947 at P.S. City Jalalpur Pirwala, District Multan was illegal and the S.H.O. was not authorised under the law to register the said case and to investigate it. Reliance is placed upon 1992 MLD

311. This writ petition is accepted and the registration of F.I.R. No.190/95 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and consequently quashed. It is, however, clarified that the competent authority under the West Pakistan Anti‑Corruption Establishment, 1961 and Rules of 1985 framed thereunder may if they so decide, may proceed to register a case against the petitioner. Respondents Muhammad Shafi and Jabbar Din may also approach the said competent authority for registration of a case against the petitioner, which if registered, shall be investigated and disposed of in accordance with law. N.H.Q./M‑65/L F.I.R. quashed.