' The petitioner seeks quashment of case F.I.R. No.22 dated 24-2-2004, under sections 161/452/380, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Police Station ACE., Multan.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as would be apparent from the contents of the F.I.R., the complainant had made allegation that some amount has been paid as bribe and the remaining is to be paid but no raid was conducted and as such the case could not have been registered without preliminary investigation under 1985 Rules framed under Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance: 1961.
3. Messrs M. Qasam Khan and Zafarullah Khan Khakwani, A.A.-Gs. On the other hand contend that the rules do not take precedence over provisions of parent Ordinance and moreso on the provisions of Cr.P.C. And it is not at all mandatory requirement of law that a case is to be registered only after a preliminary inquiry. Learned Law Officers further point out that it is true that the raid could not be conducted but completed transaction constituting a cognizable offence had been reported by the complainant and the F.I.R. Is not liable to be quashed on the ground being taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Law officers have brought to my notice judgments in the cases M. Abdul Latif v. G.M. Paracha and others (1981 SCMR 1101), Mirza M. Iqbal v. Government of Punjab (PLD 1999 Lahore 109) and Muhammad Yousaf v. Director Anti-Corruption Establishment, Punjab, Lahore and 5 others (PLD 2004 Lahore 284).
4. Now according to the contents of the F.I.R., the complainant reported that he was asleep in his house in the night of 18/19-2-2004 at about 11/12 in the night Ali Ahmad, petitioner (5.-I.) along with other accused persons entered his house forcibly and gave his fist blows and searched his house and took away several articles and cash detailed in the F.I.R. And they also took along his nephew Aqeel to Police Station Gulghashat, Multan. Ali Ahmad was approached who received Rs.1000 in presence of the witnesses and further demanded Rs.2000 for releasing Aqeel, the nephew of the complainant, and that he wants a raid to be conducted. In the comments it has been stated that raid could not be conducted as the petitioner made himself scare upon acquiring knowledge of the raid. Be that as it may, the contents of the F.I.R. Do make out B commission a cognizable offence against the petitioner and his accomplices.
5. Now so far as the said contentions of the learned counsel are concerned. Commencing from the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case M. Abdul Latif v. G.M. Paracha (1981 SCMR 1101). It is by now well-settled that the Rules framed under the said Ordinance are not mandatory and further are not to be read in derogation of the parent statute itself. It has further been held by this Court consistently, as is being opined by the learned Law Officers that it is not at all mandatory requirement of law that a preliminary inquiry be conducted in every case. The provisions of Cr.P.C. Including section 154, Cr.P.C. Has to take effect. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited some judgments to state that a case under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 cannot be registered by normal/ordinary police station and such a case is to be registered by Anti-Corruption Establishment. I have already noted above that the case in fact was registered by Anti-Corruption Establishment.
6. For what has been stated above, the writ petition is frivolous and ID is accordingly dismissed with costs.