2010 YLR 1571 (PLP)

IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--Former requests for short adjournment on the ground that counsel for petitioner has become Additional Advocate-General but this request is turned down because counsel for petitioner was appointed as A.A.-G. many months ago. This petition was admitted for regular hearing on 24-3-2006 and was fixed for 8-11-2006. On 8-11-2006 counsel for petitioner was on general adjournment and matter was fixed for 17-11-2006. On 17-11-2006 counsel for petitioner again was not present and record from the Trial Court was requisitioned for 7-12-2006 but on the said date of hearing counsel for petitioner requests for short adjournment and matter was fixed for 15-1-2007; on the said date again learned counsel for the petitioner was not present and matter was fixed for 14-2-2007. On 14-2-2007 matter was adjourned for 7-3-2007 on the request of learned law Officer; on the said date matter was fixed for 3-4-2007 but on 3-4-2007 learned counsel for petitioner was absent, thereafter case was fixed for 30-4-2007 and again adjourned for 11-12-2007. On 11-12-2007 matter was adjourned for a date to be fixed by the office. On 24-1-2008 matter was fixed by the Office and learned counsel for petitioner was directed to procure the attendance of complainant for 28-2-2008. Now today this matter is fixed for hearing but again learned counsel for petitioner is not present. Through this Constitutional petition the petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 13-3-2006 passed by respondent No.2 on the ground that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to summon the petitioner as the petitioner had been declared innocent by the Investigating Agency; that the petitioner was honourably retired from service on 6-5-2003 when the proceedings against him were dropped after the lapse of eight years; that summoning of the petitioner for trial and restart the proceedings which were finalized in 1998 is unjustified and abuse of process of law. In brief the story narrated in the F.I.R. is that the complainant alleged that accused Muhammad Bashir, Office Superintendent along with Malik Khair Muhammad D.E.O. demanded illegal gratification of Rs.5,000 from him for implementing the order of Director Elementary Education, Sargodha relating to his appointment as E.S.T. Teacher and then received an amount of Rs.2000 as bribe for the said purpose. The complainant alleged that the petitioner had not completed his agreement and ultimately the orders were got issued through the intervention of Director Education. The complainant further alleged that Accounts Office Sargodha made certain objections on which he contacted accused Muhammad Bashir, Office Superintendent, who demanded illegal gratification of Rs.3000 for removal of objection and the bargain was settled between the parties at Rs.2000. On receipt of this complaint a raiding party was constituted and raid was conducted under the Supervision of Magistrate and accused Muhammad Bashir was apprehended along with tainted currency notes amounting to Rs.2000 which were recovered from his possession. During investigation petitioner was declared innocent and Anti-Corruption Establishment dropped the case vide order dated 20-6-1998. Aggrieved from the said order the complainant moved an application before Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Sargodha for return of his amount i.e. of Rs.2000 upon that application respondent No.2 summoned the record and summoned the petitioner to face the trial vide order dated 13-3-2006. I have perused the impugned order as well as contends of this petition and also arguments of learned law Officer. Since the petitioner was caught red-handed at the spot and according to learned trial Court sufficient legal evidence is available on the record to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly summoned the petitioner to face the trial as it is not mandatory upon the Trial Court to agree with the report of the police, the opinion of police is not binding upon the Court and cannot be given any legal value and Trial Court while finding it a fit ease for trial has summoned the petitioner. The ground taken up by learned counsel that the petitioner was retired from service on 6-5-2003 after attaining the age of superannuation, suffice it to say that petitioner was in service when the occurrence took place. Furthermore, it's a raid case and tainted money had also been recovered from the possession of petitioner by the raiding party. Prima facie petitioner is guilty of the offence under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2)/47, P.C.A. and he has been rightly summoned by the Trial Court to face the trial. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction. Accordingly this petition being devoid of force stands dismissed with the direction to the Trial Court to accelerate the proceedings and conclude the trial within sixty (60) days. H.B.T. /M-126/L Petition dismissed.