' The facts of the case are that Kh. Abdul Samad, who was Technical Assistant, Archaeology was apprehended when a raid was conducted by a raiding party and Rs.10,000 bribe money was also recovered. An F.I.R. Was registered on 7-1-1999. A sanction was granted by Federal Government on 11-7-2001 and thereafter challan was submitted, prosecution evidence was started when Muhammad Shafi Chattah, who is one of respondent in this revision petition was examined by the learned trial Court when a letter was produced by the Public Prosecutor which is Annexure-F at page 48 of this revision petition for withdrawal of the case from the learned trial Court. On this letter arguments were heard from both sides. Learned Special Judge Central, Lahore dismissed the application vide order dated 24-6-2004, hence this revision petition.
2. Learned Standing Counsel for Federal Government submits that in fact this application was filed under sub-clause 4 of section 10 of Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958 and the Court has no power to dismiss the application filed by Public Prosecutor. He further submits that in fact learned Special Judge Central, Lahore, treated the said application under section 494, Cr.P.C. He requests that impugned order be set aside and case be remanded back to learned trial Court to consider the withdrawal of sanction as envisaged in sub-clause 4 or section 10 of Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958. He has relied upon Dr. Nazir A. Sheikh and others v. The State 1989 PCr.LJ 1361; Qazi Khalid Saifullah v. Sh. Lutfur Rehman and another 1986 PCr.LJ 2619
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that he is complainant in this case; that in fact respondent No.3 had been demanding illegal bribe from respondent No.2, thereafter he informed Anti-Corruption Authorities, a raid was conducted, respondent No.3 was apprehended and tainted money of Rs.10,000 was recovered from him. He further submits that challan was submitted, complainant was examined, rest of the evidence was summoned when on 4-5-2004 learned Public Prosecutor submitted application for withdrawal of sanction. He submits that respondent No.2 is an aggrieved person and heinous offence has been committed, order for withdrawal of sanction is illegal and order passed by learned Special Judge Central, is in accordance with law and the petition should be dismissed. He has relied upon The State v.' Navid Asif and others PLD 1991 Lahore 268; Mir Hassan v. Tariq Saeed and 2 others PLD 1977 Supreme Court 451; Saad Shibli v. The State and another PLD 1981 Supreme Court 617; Muhammad Saleem v.
Mukhtar Khan and another 1984 PCr.LJ 390 and Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob and others v. The State and others 1992 SCM R 1983.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case as mentioned above it was a raid case, respondent No.3 was apprehended at the spot, tainted money Rs.10,000 was recovered and after investigation and granting sanction from appropriate Government challan was submitted in the Court. Learned trial Court started recording evidence. One witness respondent No.2 (complainant) was examined when learned Public Prosecutor submitted copy of order passed by Ministry of Interior which is at page 48 of the petition for withdrawal of the sanction. I have gone through the judgments submitted by both sides. In PLD 1991 Lahore 268 The State v. Navid Asif and others it was held in the head note (0. Even a written application of the Government seeking withdrawal of the prosecution is not to be granted by the Court as a matter of course but shall have to be dealt with on the touchstone of the law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Mir Hassan v. Tariq Saeed PLD 1977 SC 451. In 1992 SCM R 1983 Ch. Muhammad Yaqub and others v.
The State, it was held by his Lordship that State or Public Prosecutor has no absolute power to withdraw a criminal case and the consent of the Court is required. Court is obliged to apply its mind to the question, whether request for withdrawal is bona fide warranted by the facts of the case and is intended to foster the cause of justice and is not made in bad faith with the objection to favour an accused person at the cost of the victims of the criminal offence involved. It was also held in 1984 PCr.LJ 390 (SC (AJ&K) Muhammad Saleem v. Mukhtar Khan and another, that withdrawal from prosecution, held an executive and not a judicial act. Court must be satisfied that executive function of Public Prosecutor was not improperly exercised or that it was not an attempt of interfering with _course of justice. It was further held that legislature not defining circumstances under which such withdrawal permissible. No hard and fast rule, held, can therefore, be laid down on subject. Each case has its own features. It was held in PLD 1981 Supreme Court 617 Saad Shibli v.
The State and another, that Government can take a decision on matter and Public Prosecutor may act on their instructions but Court thereby not absolved from applying its own independent mind to facts of case for granting or refusing consent. It was further held that Court however, held, under duty to ensure such course being not an attempt to interfere. With normal course of justice for illegitimate reasons or purposes or its own functioning being not thereby pre-empted. It was also held in PLD 1992 SC 72 Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad v. Zafar Awan, Advocate High Court, that it is narrated from the Holy Prophet that the previous nations were destroyed because they had different laws for highups and the influential and others for the masses.
5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the judgments produced before this Court I am of the opinion that withdrawal of sanction is based on mala fide on the part of Ministry of Interior and that was done three years after granting of sanction when the trial Court was in progress to record prosecution evidence and the alleged offence committed by respondent No.3 was not only against the complainant (respondent No.2) but the society to which it is 'prerogative of the trial Court to record evidence and then to reach to a conclusion whether the case is false or true one. Moreover, no reasons have been given by Federal Government for withdrawal of sanction after such a long time.
6. In this view of the matter I am of the opinion that no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. Instant revision petition is dismissed and the parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 19-4-2005 who will proceed with the case in accordance with law.
Criminal .