' MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJUM-UZ-ZAMAN, J.---During the investigation of case F.I.R. No, 16 of 2003, dated 9-7-2003 for the offence under sections 161/162/419, P.P.C. Read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 registered at Police Station A.C.E., Sargodha, the cancellation report was prepared. When the matter went to Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Sargodha, the learned Judge vide order, dated 1-3-2005 instead of agreeing with the police report directed that a fresh report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Be filed against Gahna Patwari under section 161, P.P.C. And Sarfraz under section 162, P.P.C.
2. Through this petition legality of order has been challenged byGahna Patwari (petitioner) on the grounds that the F.I.R. Is absolutely silent about his involvement; that during the investigation no material was brought on record to connect him with the commission of this offence and that in the circumstances his involvement in this case for the offence under section 161, P.P.C. Is not justifiable.
3. The officer who has brought the record submits that during the investigation nothing was found against the petitioner to challan him in this case, however because of his negligence about the performance of his duty i.e, allowing the strangers to use his office, only departmental action was recommended against the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant (respondent No,3) while opposing the writ petition argued that in fact complainant had visited the office of the petitioner who asked to pay Rs,200 as illegal gratification for the issuance of the Fard and that ,upon asking of the petitioner the amount was given to Sarfraz co-accused of the petitioner. Submits that petitioner is very much involved in this case.
5. Heard. File perused.
The impugned order reveals that learned trial Court after going through the data available on the record being satisfied about the involvement of the petitioner for the commission of offence had directed the agency to submit supplementary report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Against the petitioner for the offence under section 161, P.P.C. And against his co-accused under section 162, P.P.C. It is well-settled that whenever a matter comes to the Court for taking cognizance, the Court takes cognizance of whole of the matter and not against the accused sent for trial. If the Trial Court was satisfied about the involvement of the petitioner then it was within the cognizance/jurisdiction of the Trial Court A to summon him as well to face the trial irrespective of the fact that he was not shown as accused in the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. The direction of the Trial Court to the Agency for the submission of a supplementary challan against the petitioner and his co-accused is not justifiable. If the Trial Court is satisfied that there is sufficient material on record to proceed against the petitioner, the Trial Court after taking the cognizance of the matter upon the report already submitted by the agency can summon the petitioner to face the trial. The impugned order to the extent of direction to the authority for the submission of supplementary report against the petitioner is set aside. With this modification in the impugned order, this petition stands disposed of.