2007 PLP 1505 (MLD)
DOST MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus Mian KAUSAR HUSSAIN and 5 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1505 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | DOST MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus Mian KAUSAR HUSSAIN and 5 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1505 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1505 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1505 (MLD) (DOST MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus Mian KAUSAR HUSSAIN and 5 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Quashing of proceedings---Civil and criminal proceedings---Contemporaneous determination---Validity---Petitioner had called in question the inquiry proceedings initiated against him by Anti-Corruption Establishment on application of respondent, which stood finalized on the basis of material produced before it---High Court could not interfere in the inquisitorial exercise being conducted by an Investigating Agency---Determination of the validity or otherwise of the allegations. would entail resolution of controversial question of -fact which exercise could not be undertaken by High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction---Contention that since the matter had been finally settled by the Revenue Authorities,- therefore proceedings being conducted by the Anti-Corruption Establishment was unwarranted, had no force---Determination of a dispute by Revenue Authorities could by no means wipe out the criminal liability of a person who, on the basis of material collected by the Investigating Agency; was prima facie found to be implicated in the crime---Other argument that matter being essentially of civil nature, continuation of proceedings by the Investigating Agency was uncalled for, was also devoid of any force---Civil as well as criminal proceedings could continue side by side as those both related to different laws and. could be instituted simultaneously---Counsel for petitioner had not been able to satisfy the court as to the maintainability of constitutional petition.
- Ch. Muhammad Aslam for Petitioner.
- Shahbaz Ahmed Dhillun, A.A.-G. and Muhammad Azam for Respondents.
- 4. The learned Assistant Advocate-General on instructions from respondent No.5-Circle Officer contended that the enquiry had been finalized in which the petitioner was found to be implicated in the crime and, therefore, registration of F.I.R. had been recommended and that "even otherwise the writ petition was not maintainable.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Civil and criminal proceedings
Contemporaneous determination
Petitioner had called in question the inquiry proceedings initiated against him by Anti-Corruption Establishment on application of respondent, which stood finalized on the basis of material produced before it
High Court could not interfere in the inquisitorial exercise being conducted by an Investigating Agency
Determination of the validity or otherwise of the allegations. would entail resolution of controversial question of -fact which exercise could not be undertaken by High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction
Contention that since the matter had been finally settled by the Revenue Authorities,- therefore proceedings being conducted by the Anti-Corruption Establishment was unwarranted, had no force
Determination of a dispute by Revenue Authorities could by no means wipe out the criminal liability of a person who, on the basis of material collected by the Investigating Agency; was prima facie found to be implicated in the crime
Other argument that matter being essentially of civil nature, continuation of proceedings by the Investigating Agency was uncalled for, was also devoid of any force
Civil as well as criminal proceedings could continue side by side as those both related to different laws and. could be instituted simultaneously
Counsel for petitioner had not been able to satisfy the court as to the maintainability of constitutional petition.
Judgment & Decree
TARIQ SHAMIM, J.
Through this petition, the .petitioner seeks quashing of proceedings initiated by the Anti-Corruption Establishment against the petitioner on an application submitted by respondent No.1.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1, the nephew of one Muhammad Aslam filed an application with the Anti-Corruption Establishment, Punjab, questioning the legality of Mutation No.1803 entered on the basis of oral sale in favour of the petitioner, alleging fraud committed by the petitioner with the active connivance of the revenue field staff. Enquiry was initialed but on withdrawal of the application, the enquiry was dropped. The petitioner has again been summoned by the Additional Director, Anti-Corruption Establishment. Hence, this petition.
3. The learned counsel inter alia contended that the matter stood finally, decided by D.D.O. (R). Okara vide order, dated 4-10-2005 whereby the disputed mutation stood restored which even otherwise was a civil dispute and that the matter having been finally settled by the .Revenue Authorities, continuation of proceedings by the Anti-Corruption Establishment was unwarranted.
4. The learned Assistant Advocate-General on instructions from respondent No.5-Circle Officer contended that the enquiry had been finalized in which the petitioner was found to be implicated in the crime and, therefore, registration of F.I.R. had been recommended and that "even otherwise the writ petition was not maintainable.
5. I have heard the learned counsel and the learned A.A.-G. and have gone through the record.
6. It has been noticed that the petitioner has called in question the enquiry proceedings initiated by the Anti-Corruption Establishment on the application of respondent No.1 which stands finalized on the basis of material produced before it. This Court, in the first place, cannot interfere in the inquisitorial exercise being conducted by an investigating agency and secondly the determination of the validity or otherwise of the allegations entails resolution of controversial questions of fact which exercise cannot be undertaken by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. The argument that since the matter has been finally settled by the Revenue Authorities and, therefore, the proceedings being conducted by the Anti-Corruption Establishment are unwarranted, has no force. Determination of a dispute by Revenue Authorities can by no means wipe out the criminal liability of a person, who on the basis of material collected by the investigating agency, is prima facie found to be implicated in the crime. The other argument, that the matter is essentially one of civil nature and, therefore, continuation of proceedings by the investigating agency is uncalled for, is also devoid of any force. Civil as well as criminal proceedings can continue side by side as they both relate to different laws and can be instituted simultaneously. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy the Court as to the maintainability of the writ petition.
7. In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed. H.B.T./D-7/L Petition dismissed.