The facts of the case are that the case FIR No, 697 was registered against the petitioner by Respondent No, 1 on 2.11.2002 under Section 409/420/468 and 471 PPC. The petitioner is seeking quashment of the said FIR mainly on the ground that Respondent No, 1 has no jurisdiction in the matter and that the entire proceedings commenced by him are coram-nonjudice.
2. The petitioner has placed reliance upon Rule 8 of the Punjab Anti Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985 and contends that the petitioner who is a public servant, the registration of a case in respect of a scheduled offence, exclusively falls within the jurisdiction . of Anti Corruption Establishment and that the Local Police does not figure any where in the said scheme. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner has places reliance upon the case of Muhammad Sharif v. SHO PLD 1999 Lahore 692 Muhammad Afzal vs. Muhammad Siddiq 1992 M LD 311 and Aasia. vs. The State PLJ 1996 Cr1. Cases Lahore 81. He has also relied upon the case of Muhammad Iqbal ASI vs. SHO 2000 PCr.L.J 1924 for the same proposition.
3. On the other hand, the learned AAG for the state controverted this contention of the petitioner and submitted that the registration of cases at the ordinary police stations even in case of scheduled offence was not illegal as Section 8 of the West Pakistan Anti Corruption Establishment Ordinance 1961 had provided that the provisions of the said Ordinance were in addition to and not in derogation to any other law for the time being inforce. It is contended that all provisions of Criminal Procedure Code were kept intact. It is stated that there was no jurisdictional defect in lodging of the FIR against the petitioner and that there was no force in the quashment proceedings.
The learned AAG has also placed reliance upon the case of Mirza Muhammad Iqbal vs. Government of Punjab PLD 1999 Lahore 109 and submits that the view expressed in this judgment has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CPSLA. No, 1557-L-1998.
4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
5. Mumtaz Khan petitioner is the Secretary Union Council Chak Beli Khan Tehsil and District Rawalpindi. Tehsil Nazim suspended the petitioner vide order dated 21.10.2002, It was alleged that despite the order of suspension from service, the petitioner collected 400. bags of wheat for the said Union Council although he had no authority to do the same. It was alleged that the bags of wheat were received with a criminal intention to misappropriate the same. It was on the basis of this complaint that SHO P.S. Waris Khan Respondent No, 1 registered a case against the petitioner vide FIR No, 697 dated 2.11.2002 under Section 409/420/468/471 PPC.
6. The point of law convassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not bear scrutiny when viewed in the light of Section 8 West Pakistan Anti Corruption Establishment Ordinance 1961.
According to this provision of law, the provision of Ordinance are in addition and not in derogation of any other law for the time being inforce. This would clearly show that the provision of Criminal Procedure Code are meant to be-kept intact. This being the position, Rules 6, 7 and 8 of the Punjab Anti Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985 can not be interpretted to have an over-riding effect upon the provisions of Section 154 Cr.P.C. The Rules of 1985 can not supersede, super impose or be construed in excess all the parameters laid down in the parent Ordinance viz Section 8 of the Anti Corruption Establishment Ordinance.
7. This view is fully supported by the case of Mirza Muhammad Iqbal and others vs. Government of the Punjab, PLD 1999 Lahore 109 and another D.B. Judgment of this Court titled Shafqat Hussain and another vs. Malik Sarfraz, Inspector Circle Officer ACE Hafizabad and another 2000 P.Cr.L.J. 1995.
8. The learned AAG has further submitted that the judgment rendered in case of Mirza Muhammad Iqbal Supra has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding CPSLA No, 1557-L-98.
9. In view of the fore-going it is concluded that the provisions of Rules 6, 7 and 8 of the A.C.E. Rules 1985 being subordinate legislation cannot control or over-ride Section 8 of the West Pakistan A.C.E.
Ordinance or Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
10.Resultantly, there is no force in this petition which is hereby dismissed.