The petitioner, a civil servant is aggrieved of registration of a criminal case at an ordinary police station and proceeding pursuant thereto.
2. This petition was admitted to regular hearing vide order dated 14.12.2005.
3. It is inter alia contended that the petitioner being a Government Servant, no criminal case could be registered against him with the local police rather if at all any proceedings were to be conducted against him, the same could be initiated by the Anti-Corruption Establishment. Places reliance upon (2000 MLD Lahore 63) "Sahib Khan and five others Vs. The State" in support of his contentions.
4. Conversely learned Deputy Prosecutor General has vehemently opposes the submissions and submits that the West Pakistan Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance (XX of 1961) and Punjab Anti-Corruption Rules, 1985 made there under are not in derogation of the general law of the land, therefore, the proceedings, could justifiably be taken against the petitioner by registration of a criminal case at an ordinary police station.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Similar issue came under discussion before this Court in case titled as 'Mirza Muhammad Iqbal and others Vs. Government of the Punjab" (PLD 1999 Lahore 109), wherein the entire case law on the point in issues was discussed and it was finally concluded that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan case reported as "Abdul Latif Vs. G.M. Paracha and others" (1981 SCMR 1101) cases could be registered at an ordinary police station. Para 3 & 4 thereof for ready reference are re-produced here under:-- "The main thrust of the arguments of Mr. Pervaiz Inayat Malik, Advocate, is that the petitioners being public servants and allegations pertain to the performance of their functions as such public servants and the alleged offences, thereof being covered by Schedule to the Ordinance, the registration of cases at ordinary police stations established under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 is illegal. It is stressed that under the Scheme of the Ordinance read with Rules, the registration of cases can only take place after enquiry by the Establishment. Any contrary view will expose the public servants to the whims of ordinary police officer and will also destroy the protection given to the public servnat under the Rules. Large number of cases including Packages Limited through its General Manager and others v. Muhammad Maqbool and others PLD 1991 SC 258; Messrs EFU General Insurance Company Limited v. The Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1997 SC 700. Messrs Bisivl Spinners Ltd. V.
Superintendent, Central Excise and Land Customs, Circle Sheikhupura and another PLD 1988 SC 370, Neimat Ali Goraya and 7 others V. Jaffar Abbas, Inspector/Sergant Traffic through S.P., Traffic, Lahore and others 1996 SCMR 826. Golden Orphies (Pvt.) Ltd. and 12 others u. Director of Vigilance, Central Excise, Customs and Sales Tax and others 1993 SCMR 1635, Wukala Muhaz Barai Tahafaz Dastoor and another u. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1996 SC 324; Messrs Tank Steel and Re: Rolling Mills (Put) Ltd., Dera Ismail Khan and others V. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1996 SC 77; Muhammad Sadiq and others u. University of Sindh and another PLD 1996 SC 182; The State u. Hamtho 1971 SCMR 686; Akhtar Muhammad u. Haji Faiz Muhammad and others 1986 P.Cr.L.J 2994 have been cited to make the point that the provisions of special law prevailed over the provisions of general law, in case both cannot be harmonized together. The judgments reported as Saleem Hussain u. State PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lah.) 916; Mahboob Ali V. State and 3 others PLD 1874; Muhammad Sharif v. S.H.O., P.S. City Hafizabad PLD 1997 Lah. 692 have been relied upon in support of the proposition that cases against public servants in respect of scheduled offences can only be registered with the Establishment and inquired into the tried by the Members of the Establishment constituted under Section 3 of the Ordinance. The learned Advocate General, Punjab, on the other hand, has contended that the provisions of Ordinance do not displace/uproot any of the provisions of existing laws like Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 and Police Act, 1861 and for this 'purpose he relied on Section 8 of the Ordinance which is to the effect that the provisions the Ordinance are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. In this connection he has further relied on the case reported as M.
Abdul Latif v. G.M. Paracha and others (1981 SCMR 1101). Learned Advocate General, Punjab, has emphasized that the issue involved in these cases stands clinched by the above judgment of the Supreme Court and this Court need not enter into fresh exercise. He has also elaborated that registrars of a case at one or the other police station is not very material as it is in the interest of the society as a whole that the report of the crimes be taken notice of and the allegations investigated. He has urged that the cases of this Court namely Saleem Hussain v. State (PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 916), Mahboob Ali v. State and 3 others (PLD 1996 Lah. 454), Tariq Latif Butt and others V. State and 4 others (1996 MLD 1874) and Muhammad Sharif V. S.H.O. P.S City Hafizabad (PLD 1997 Lah. 692) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners do not lay down correct law as these failed to take notice of the above Supreme Court judgment. By relying on the case reported as Province of the. Punjab through Secretary, Health Department v. Dr. (S. Muhammad Zafar Bukhari (PLD 1997 SC 351) at page 364 he has described these judgments as per-in-curiam. In reply Mr. Pervaiz Inayat Malik, Advocate, referred to the letter issued by Director, Public Instructions. (EE), Punjab, Lahore which appeared at page No, 23 of Writ Petition No, 18785 of 1998 to the effect that Tehsil Implementation Committee has been asked to send the cases to appointing authorities for further orders/registration of case."
7. In view of afore stated discussion, I am of the considered view that Abdul Latifs case referred to supra takes care of the matter and resolves the controversy in hand and law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is per-in-curium. I, therefore, hold that criminal case against Civil Servants can be registered at ordinary police station, in respect of matters rising out their official obligations and investigation so conducted by the ordinary police is also lawful.
8. With these observations, this petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed.