' M.A. ZAFAR, J.---A case F.I.R. No,268 was registered on 3-7-1999 with Police Station City Mianwali, at the instance of Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad, XEN, with the allegations that Chowkidar informed the XEN in the morning at 4-55 a.m. That the office has got fire, as such the XEN immediately informed the Fire Bridge. According to the report, it was doubted that the petitioner, who is a Junior Clerk working in the Irrigation Department, Khushab Division, at Mianwali, S.D.C., S.D.O. (Land), the Contractor Muhammad Hanif, Javaid Iqbal and Muhammad Riaz prepared bogus payments and in order to destroy the same it was apprehended that the aforesaid fire might have been caused by the aforesaid persons.
2. After the investigation of the case by the local police they investigated the matter and submitted challan in the Court of learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Sargodha Camp at Mianwali. The petitioner and others filed W.P. No,5819 of 2001 seeking quashment, which was dismissed by this Court vide order, dated 7-1-2005.
3. The learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Sargodha, framed charge under sections. 420, 468, 471, 409, 436, 380 and 109, P.P.C. On 27-1-2005. The learned trial Judge recorded statements of nine prosecution witnesses and last statement of P.W.9 was recorded on 19-5-2005. The learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption passed the following order on 27-4-2006:- "The case is admittedly exclusively triable by this Court. It was registered, investigated and challaned to Court by the local police. My learned predecessor started trial in this case. This is an established principle of law subject to no exception that local police is not competent to investigate and challan the case exclusively triable by this Court. It is prerogative of the Anti- Corruption Establishment to investigate such like cases and at the most local police can lodge an F.I.R. And nothing more than that.
(2) For the reasons recorded in my detailed order, dated 21-2-2006 passed in case F.I.R. No,109, dated 8-2-2002 P.S. Sargodha , Road, Faisalabad (Photostatic copy marked-A), case file may be returned to the learned prosecutor with a direction that the same may be passed on to the Anti- Corruption Establishment, Sargodha for investigation in accordance with law."
' Feeling aggrieved from the order, dated 27-4-2006 the present petitioner filed this revision, which was admitted to regular hearing on 21-8-2006 and the operation of the impugned order, dated 27- 4-2006 was suspended and the proceedings before the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption were also stayed in the meanwhile.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order of the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Sargodha, directing Anti-Corruption Establishment for investigation in accordance with law is bad in law. He submits that the mere fact that instead of Anti-Corruption Establishment investigation has been conducted by the local police would not render the entire investigation to be null and void. He further submits that when no prejudice has been caused to the either side the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption has not properly exercised the jurisdiction vested with him. He submits that petitioner is facing agony of investigation and trial for the last 9 years.
5. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has halfheartedly defended the impugned order, dated 27- 4-2006 passed by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Sargodha camp at Mianwali.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties. I find that case was registered by the local police on 3-7-1999 and after investigation challan of the case was submitted in the Court of learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, who framed the charge on 27-1-2005 and had already recorded statements of nine prosecution witnesses when the impugned order was passed. The mere fact that investigation has been taken by the local police and challan was submitted in the Court of learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, would not render the investigation conducted by the local police to be void and the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption while passing the impugned order has not properly exercised the jurisdiction vested with him directing to the Anti- Corruption Establishment to reinvestigate the case. When the learned Judge has taken cognizance of the matter and recorded statement of number of the witnesses, then there was no fun at all to send the case to the Anti-Corruption Establishment for investigation. Trial cannot be vitiated on the basis that an incompetent police official had conducted the investigation. Reliance is placed on the case titled Sarfraz v. The State 2007 SCM R 830 and even if presumed for the sake of argument that F.I.R. Ought to have been registered by the Anti-Corruption Establishment, even then c same was protected by law declared by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State v. Bashir and others PLD 1997 SC 408. Guidance can also be taken from the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case titled M. Abdul Latif v. G.M. Paracha and others 1981 SCM R 1101.
The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below:--- "6. The learned counsel contended next that section 3 of the West Pakistan Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance, 1961 provides that:--- ' "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, Government may constitute an Establishment to be known as to the Anti-Corruption Establishment, or the investigation of offence set forth in the Schedule, and for the holding of preliminary inquiries for determining whether such offence shall be investigated, or departmental inquires into the conduct of any public servant concerned in such offences shall be held."
7. He submitted that such an Establishment had, in fact, been created and it being a special law, only members of this Establishment could investigate the offences of corruption, and that, therefore, police officers attached to the Anti Smuggling (Rice and. Paddy) Mobile Team could not investigate such a case. This contention overlooks the provision of section 8 of the said Ordinance which provides:--- ' "The provisions of this Ordinance are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force."
8. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order, dated 27-4-2006 passed by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Sargodha camp at Mianwali, is set aside and he is directed to proceed with the trial from the stage, where he discontinued by passing order, dated 27-4-2006. Allowed.