' MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.--- Through this petition for leave to appeal, the petitioners have assailed the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 27-9-2007 passed by High Court of Sindh Karachi, whereby Constitutional petition filed by the respondent was accepted and the investigation being conducted by the petitioners against the respondent was quashed.
2. The respondent who was serving as Principal Appraiser in Karachi Customs Department was saddled with the accusation that he acquired assets disproportionate to the known sources of his income. The grievance of the respondent agitated before the High Court was that despite having submitted all the required information about his assets along with documentary proof he has been subjected to the investigation three times, yet again reinvestigating has been ordered, which is going on and till the date of filing of the petition no reference has been filed in Court by the NAB authorities. It was, therefore, pleaded that the action of the petitioners was tainted with malice as he was being subject to unnecessary humiliation and harassment.
3. After hearing the parties, learned Division Bench of the High B Court Sindh vide the impugned judgment quashed the investigation by holding that it was ordered in colourable exercise of powers.
4. We have heard Mr. M. Siddiq Mirza, learned Deputy Prosecutor General Accountability for the petitioners and Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondent.
5. It was mainly contended by learned Deputy Prosecutor-General Accountability that the High Court was not competent to interfere in the investigation and that it had no power to quash the proceedings, as such the order passed by the High Court was not sustainable in law. Learned Law Officer Accountability in support of his contention referred the cases of Muhammad Sharif and 8 others v. The State and another 1997 SCM R 304, Brig. (Retd.) Imtiaz Ahmed v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Interior Division, Islamabad and 2 others 1994 SCM R 2142, Mian Khan v.
Ghulam Mustafa and 6 others 1996 SCM R 654, Malik Shaukat Ali Dogar and 12 others v. Ghulam Qasim Khan Khakwani and others PLD 1994 SC 281, Wali Muhammad alias Walia v. Haq Nawaz and 3 others 1971 SCM R 717, Bahadur Khan v. Muhammad Azam and 2 others 2006 SCM R 373 and Raja Rustam Ali Khan v. Muhammad Hanif and 6 others 1997 SCM R 2008. On the other hand, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the respondent supported the impugned judgment.
6. We have considered the arguments advanced before us, appreciated the case-law relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners and have examined the impugned judgment on the touchstone of settled principles of law.
7. It will be pertinent to reproduce, at the outset, the relevant portion of the impugned judgment:-- "Keeping in view the above principle of law, we have examined the factual aspect of the case and found that it is an admitted position that in the month of July, 2001 the NAB Authorities initiated inquiry against the petitioner on an anonymous complaint in respect of the assets held by him and has family members, which were allegedly disproportionate to his known sources of income. After inquiry on 20-6-2002 D.-G. NAB authorized Nafees Ahmed Siddiqui, Inspector FIA, Karachi to Investigate the matter. The record supplied by the NAB authorities reveals that the said Investigating Officer had completed the investigation and submitted the report to the competent authority on 16-1-2004. In the said report, he formed the opinion that there was sufficient material to justify filing the reference against the petitioner. The report was sent to the Legal Department for examination and expert's opinion. The Legal Department through Mr. Sardar Aslam Afridi exatnined the case and submitted the report on 15-4-2004 concluding that the case was weak and not fit for sending it to the Court for trial purpose by disagreeing with the findings of Investigating Officer. It appears that D.-G., NAB was not satisfied with the said report, therefore in the month of June, 2004 D.-G., NAB ordered for reinvestigation of the case through Haroon Rashid, Investigating Officer. After completing the investigation, he also submitted the report, in which he took the similar view as that of Investigating Officer Nafees Ahmed Siddiqui. The Legal Department did not agree with the finding of Investigating Officer and formed similar opinion as already given on 15-4-2004. It appears that 3-6-2005 D.-G. NAB again referred the matter for reinvestigation to Abu Bakar Bhatti, Investigating Officer, who also after investigation submitted the report with similar findings as already given by two Investigating Officers. The papers were again sent to Legal Department for opinion. The Legal Department took the similar view as already taken by not agreeing with the view pressed by the Investigating Officer. The record further shows that on 21-4-2004 D.-G., NAB again referred that matter for reinvestigation to Ghulam Abbas Baloch, Investigating Officer, who after investigation submitted the report by forming the opinion that there was no sufficient evidence to place the matter before the competent Court of law for successful prosecution against the accused, therefore he suggested that the matter might be considered for closure after taking legal output in the matter. It appears that the matter was again referred to legal opinion, who concurred with the view of the Investigating Officer. It also appears that the D.-G.
NAB was again not satisfied with the said report, therefore, on 17-7-2004 he again referred the matter for reinvestigation to Aslam Pervaiz Abro, Investigating Officer, respondent No,3 who is now conducting the investigation.
' From the above position, it is clear that various Investigating Officers completed their investigations, submitted their reports, vetted by Legal Department and it was found that the case was not fit for prosecution. This is a case of acquiring assets disproportionate to the known sources of income of the petitioner. In this type of case, firstly the prosecution is required to prove the sources of income of the petitioners known to the prosecution after thorough investigation, secondly assets owned and possessed by the petitioner or his family members, Benamidar etc. And thirdly, the said assets are disproportionate to the known sources of income. In the present case, the petitioner is a holder of public office, therefore, his main source of income was his salary.
Reference is invited to Hakim Ali Zardari v. The State 2007 M LD 910. The petitioner has admitted the ownership of the assets and has furnished explanation for acquiring the said assets and the assets were duly declared in the wealth/Income Tax Returns and Annual Declaration of Assets filed before the department. On the above point, the entire material was collected by the Investigating Officer in the year 2002. The subsequent Investigating Officer after their Investigation could not find any other material. The last Investigating Officer, who concluded the investigation, viz. Ghulam Abbas Baloch, also mentioned these facts and formed the opinion that the case was not fit for prosecution."
8. On bare perusal of the impugned judgment it will transpire that the judgment is supported by strong and convincing reasons. It may be observed that at least three investigations were conducted by them NAB authorities. On two occasions though the Investigating Officer recommended the filing of the reference but the case could not be filed for the reasons that in the opinion of the Legal Expert the case against the respondents was weak. In the third investigation, the Investigating Officer furnished the report stating that there was no sufficient evidence to submit the reference before the Court of law for successful prosecution against the accused, therefore, he submitted that the case might be considered for closure after taking legal opinion in the matter. When the matter was referred for legal opinion, the Legal Expert concurred with the view if the Investigating Officer but still the Deputy Director-General, NAB, was not satisfied and he again referred the matter for investigation. It is obviously evident from the record that in the first instance, the investigations were initiated in the year 2001 but no sufficient evidence could be collected against the respondent despite repeated investigations for the purpose of his prosecution. Evidently, a futile exercise of reinvestigation continued for six years causing undue harassment to the respondent. Thus the learned High Court rightly issued directions in the nature of judgment which is impugned before us.
9. So far as the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners before us is concerned it must be stated that there is no cavil with certain settled principles of law, yet, the case-law which was referred before us was short of advancing the case of the petitioners. Indeed the stance taken by the petitioners militates against the principles laid down in the case of Bahadur Khan (supra) referred before us, wherein the rule laid down in the case of Riaz Hussain and another v. The State 1986 SCM R 1934 has been endorsed. In the case of Muhammad Sharif and 8 others (supra), this Court set aside the orders of the High Court and maintained the orders of- the Magistrate wherein while concurring with the police report submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C. The Magistrate has discharged the appellants and the criminal case registered against them was cancelled. In the case of Brig. (Retd.) Imtiaz Ahmed (supra), it was observed that the High Court cannot assume the role of Investigator as the authority to register and investigate a criminal case in law vests in the police and not in Court, In the case of Mian Khan (supra) it was held that the High Court could not interfere in the investigation of the case by Anti-Corruption Department. In the case of Malik Shaukat Ali Dogar and 12 others (supra), the order passed by the High Court calling for periodical reports about the progress of the investigation was set aside by observing that the same was prejudiced to the accused. In the case of Wali Muhammad alias Walia (supra), the order of the High Court with regard to transfer of investigation was set aside. In the case of Bahadur Khan (supra), it was held that system of reinvestigation in criminal case in no way assists the Courts in coming to a correct conclusion and it created more complications for the Courts administering justice. Thus following the law laid down in the case of Riaz Hussain and another v. The State 1986 SCM R 1934, this Court expressed its disapproval of this system altogether and supported the observation of learned High Court that it only retarded the administration of justice instead of proving any assistance thereto. In the case of Raja Rustam Ali Khan (supra), it was held as under:- -, "...It would, therefore, be seen that if an investigation is launched mala fide by the Investigation Agencies, the same is open to correction by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution."
10. Above discussion leads to the conclusion that the judgment of the High Court is perfectly legal and in accordance with the well-established principles of law thus warranting no interference.
Accordingly the petition is dismissed and .