MUHAMMAD KHALID vs ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, ANTI CORRUPTION
This constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court seeking the quashment of F.I.R. No. 3 of 2002 registered under sections 409, 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question concerned whether successive or multiple inquiries exonerating an accused bar the registration of a criminal case, and whether the Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules 1985 are mandatory or directory such that their violation warrants the quashment of an F.I.R. under constitutional jurisdiction. The court held that the Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules 1985 are directory rather than mandatory, and their violation does not constitute sufficient ground to quash an F.I.R. where serious allegations are leveled and a prima facie case is made out. Furthermore, the court held that it cannot interfere to stay police investigation or prevent the collection of evidence under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 when a prima facie case requires the recording of evidence. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.
- Whether the initiation of a third inquiry after two previous inquiries recommended dropping proceedings bars the registration of a criminal case?
- Are the Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules 1985 mandatory or directory in nature?
- Can a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 be used to stay an ongoing police investigation and restrain the investigating officer from collecting evidence?
- Does the violation of executive rules furnish sufficient ground for the quashment of an F.I.R.?
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5, Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Section 4, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Through this Constitutional petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of case F.I.R. No,3 of 2002 dated 11-1-2002 under sections 409/420/468/471, P.P.C. Read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 registered at Police Station ACE, Faisalabad.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents No,5 and 6 made a complaint against the petitioner that the petitioner had misappropriated an amount of Rs,1,85,000 in the purchase of empty bags and the petitioner had built a house worth Rs,30,00,000 which has been constructed beyond his known sources of income. C.O., ACE, held inquiry into the allegation and found the facts mentioned in the complaint bogus vide report dated 30-11-2000 and recommended for drop page of proceeding. All the proceedings were brought before respondent No,1, who again appointed another Inquiry Officer, Ata Ullah Khan, D.S.P. Who vide report dated 30-11-2000 also recommended that the proceeding against the petitioner be dropped. It is submitted that in the said two thorough inquiries the petitioner was exonerated, but respondent No,3 'on a third inquiry has recommended that a case under the Anti-Corruption Law be registered, the quashment of the same has been sought in this Constitutional petition.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner contends that action of respondent No,1 is tainted with mala tide and he could not order for registration of the case in presence of earlier two inquiries, and on the basis of finding by two Inquiry Officers that the case is false and is liable to be quashed as it is in violation of Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985. It is further contended that in the departmental inquiry the petitioner has also been found innocent and no action has been taken against the petitioner on departmental side. It is further contended that the F.I.R. Is false and this Court can interfere while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan to save the petitioner from facing investigation in the above said case.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner at length and have also perused the documents attached with the file. The learned counsel for petitioner has failed to show any Rule, which bars respondent No,1 from holding third inquiry as result of which the case has been registered. The contention of the learned counsel that this case has been registered in violation of Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985 has no force. The A Rules are framed by the Executive Authorities and not by the Parliament and these rules are not mandatory, but are directory in nature. Even any action is taken in violation of the Rule that will not sufficient ground for quashment of the F.I.R. As serious allegation has been levelled against the petitioner and a prima facie case is made out against him. In case Mirza Muhammad Iqbal and others v Government of Punjab (PLD 1991 Lahore 109) it has been held as under:- "Rules have to remain within the para-meters of the Act/Ordinance 'and the moment the same or some of them travel beyond the provisions of parent law, the same are struck down as ultra vires."
Prima facie a case is made against the petitioner which requires recording of evidence and collection of the evidence is duty of the Invistagating Officer as is defined in section 4, of Cr.P.C. This Court while exercising powers under Article 199 of the Constitution cannot stay the investigation of the case and restrain the Invistagating Officer to collect evidence. Hence this petition has no merit.
It is dismissed in limine.