2006 PLP 61 (YLR)

M. BILAL KHAN, J.

Through this constitutional petition, Turabul Hassan son of Zulfiqar, the petitioner, seeks a direction of this Court to the effect that order dated 18-8-2005 of the District Officer (Revenue), Toba Tek Singh (respondent No.1) for getting a case registered against the petitioner and others is illegal, void, without any lawful authority and further that the same be quashed. It is also prayed that the police authorities be directed not to register any case on the basis of the aforesaid order of respondent No.1 and if a case has been registered pursuant thereto, the F.I.R. be quashed. Apart from this, a prayer has also been made that Mutation No.561, dated 24-8-2004 sanctioned in favour of the petitioner, which was later on cancelled by the Revenue Authorities, be also ordered to be restored.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no case can be registered in which government officers are involved by any other authority other than the Anti-Corruption Department and that too only under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947; that since F.I.R. No.9 of 1995 dated 8-8-2005 already stands registered at police station ACE, therefore, no fresh case could be registered; that since the District Coordination Officer had refused registration of a case on the application of the petitioner, therefore, the same action on a subsequent application was illegal; that the District Officer Revenue and the Deputy District Officer Revenue have no jurisdiction and authority to conduct any proceedings regarding the fabrication in the Revenue Record; that the petitioner has filed a civil suit wherein the mutation in question is under scrutiny and therefore, in the presence of the said civil suit no criminal action could be taken.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length. His contention that it is only the Anti-Corruption Establishment, which could take action against a Government servant or public servant, is devoid of any force. In this connection reference may profitably be made to the cases of Shafqat Hussain and another v. Malik Sarfraz and another 2000 PCr.LJ 1995 and Mirza Muhammad Iqbal? and others v. Government of Punjab PLD 1999 Lahore

109. There is also no force in the contention of the learned counsel that no second F.I.R. could be registered regarding the same transaction. The case of Wajid Ali Khan Durani and others v. Government of Sindh and others 2001 SCMR 1556 provides a complete answer to the petitioner's said contention. Needless to add that the purpose of lodging an F.I.R. is not only to set the criminal law in motion c but also to provide a solid basis for the investigating agency to investigate the case. The other contention of the learned counsel that the D.O. (R) and the D.D.O. (R) have no jurisdiction or authority to conduct any proceedings regarding the fabrication in the Revenue Record, is a novel argument and defies all logic, inasmuch as it is the said Revenue authorities, who are custodian of the Revenue Record and in fact they are the D ones who are responsible for initiating appropriate action against any tampering with or fabrication of the said record. The last argument of the learned counsel that during the pendency of a civil suit, no criminal action could be taken, is again without any substance. It goes without saying that forgery, fabrication or tampering with any official record is a E crime by all definitions and there is no universal principle that during the pendency of civil suit a criminal case cannot be registered. Reference may be made to Syed Muhammad Ahmad v. The State 1972 SCMR 85; Akhtar Hussain Zaidi v. The State PLD 1985 Lah. 662 and Sana Ullah v. S.H.O. Police Station Civil Lines, Gujrat and 3 others PLD 2003 Lahore

228. This petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. N.H.Q./T-109/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.