Brief facts giving rise to this Constitutional petition may be given first.
Ahmad Hassan, Tehsildar/Consolidation Officer, Respondent No, 5 got registered case F.I.R. No, 103 dated 8.4.2003 under Sections 468/471/420 P.P.C. at Police Station City Ali Pur, Distt. Muzaffargarh with an allegation that Muhammad Zahid, Respondent No, 4 got entered/sanctioned Mutation No, 8868 dated 26.3.2003 on the basis of fictitious and bogus deed No, 2870 dated 22.12.1979 in his favour regarding 40 kanals agricultural land located in Murad Pur Janubi, Tehsil Ali Pur, Distt.
Muzaffer Garh owned by Abdul Karim son of Abdus Sattar and others (not party to the petition) and thereafter sold 20 kanals of land out of 40 kanals in favour of Ahmad Yar (not party to the petition) vide Mutation No 8872 dated 27.3.2003.
2. On 29.7.2003 aforementioned Muhammad Zahid, respondent got registered case F.I.R. No, 48 of 2003 under Sections 161/420 P.P.C. read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 at Police Station Anti Corruption Establishment. Muzaffargarh with an allegation that his grand father gifted the disputed 40 kanals of land in his favour through registered gift deed No, 2870 dated 22.12.1979; that he paid Rs, 70,000/- to Malik Ahmad Hassan, Tehsildar; Rs,20,000/- to Javaid Iqbal, Kanoogo, petitioner No, 2, and Rs, 10,000/- to Muhammad Shahid, Patwari, Petitioner No, 1 and got entered/sanctioned the mutation in question in his favour on the basis of registered deed; that on the asking and advice of Malik Ahmad Hassan, respondent-Tehsildar, he alienated 20 kanals of land out of the total 40 kanals for Rs, 2,00,000/- vide Mutation No, 8872 dated 27.3.2003. but the sale price had been retained and misappropriated' by the respondent-Tehsildar.
3. The Distt. Coordination Officer, Muzaffargarh got registered another case F.I.R. No, 16 dated 17.3.2005 under Sections 420/467/468/471 P.P.C. read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 at Police Station Anti Corruption Establishment, Muzaffargarh against Muhammad Zahid, Ahmad Hassan, Tehsildar, Javaid Iqbal, Gardawar, Shahid Mahmood, Patwari and others after coming to the conclusion as a result of domestic inquiry that they all joined hands and deprived the original owners of their land through fraud and cheating after having got sanctioned mutations on the basis of fake and bogus gilt deed. The afore-mentioned Gardawar and Patwari have prayed for quashing of the F.I.R. registered at the instance of D.C.O, Muzaffargarh with the plea that it was not permissible under the law to lodge three F.I.Rs, about the same offence.
4. Before adverting to counter claims of both the sides, I find it convenient to bring on record the facts, which are not in dispute or disputable:--
(i) Muhammad Zahid, complainant of case F.I.R. No, 48/2005 got entered and sanctioned the mutations in question on the basis of fake fictitious and bogus gift-deed.
(ii) Shahid Mahmood, Patwari, Petitioner No, 1 entered the mutation in question on 18.3.2003 on the basis of fake and bogus registered deed dated 22.12.1979.
(iii) Javaid Iqbal, Gardawar, Petitioner No, 2 recorded comparison note on the disputed mutation.
(iv)Ahmad Hassan Tehsildar/Consolidation Officer Respondent .No, 5 sanctioned the mutation in question on 26.3.2003 on the basis of bogus and fake document.
(v) Muhammad Zahid, beneficiary of the fake and bogus documents acquired interest in the land on 26.3.2003 and then alienated 20 kanals of land on the following day i,e, 27.3.2003 in favour of Ahmad Yar Jatt.
(vi)Muhammad Zahid, beneficiary of the forged, fake and bogus document succeeded to get registered case F.I.R. No, 48 of 2003 at Police Station Anti Corruption Establishment, Muzaffargarh against the revenue officials with the claim that he acquired ownership in the disputed land on the basis of genuine registered gift-deed despite knowing that the deed was bogus and fake.
(vii) Ahmad Hassan, Tehsildar who sanctioned the mutation in question on the basis of fake and bogus deed got registered case F.I.R. No, 103 of 2003 and attempted to assume the role of complainant.
5. A combined examination of the above said admitted state of affairs/record would provide a basis to say without any fear of contradiction that the revenue officials and Muhammad Zahid, beneficiary of bogus document got registered two cases; one with the local police and the other with Anti Corruption Establishment apprehending their own prosecution on the charge of fraud, forgery and corruption. The available record does not show as to why and for what consideration, Police Station City Ali Pur and Anti Corruption Establishment, Muzaffargarh accommodated the principal accused persons and registered two F.I.Rs, at their instance for the offences allegedly committed by themselves. The Distt. Coordination Officer, Muzaffargarh rightly took cognizance of the matter and got registered the case against all the culprits, who played havoc with the revenue administration. In the circumstances, no question of quashing the F.I.R. lodged at the instance of the D.C.O., Muzaffargarh would arise. The petitioners and beneficiary of fraud (Muhammad Zahid) won the favour of police and Anti Corruption Establishment and for this reason alone, I do not feel inclined to reward them with the relief prayed for.
6. For what has been stated above, the writ petition being without substance is dismissed.
7. For the reasons recorded in the preceding paragraph, case F.I.R. No, 103/2003 registered with Police Station Ali Pur, Distt. Muzaffargarh and pending trial with Area Magistrate stands transferred to the Court of learned Special Judge. Anti Corruption, Multan. The conduct of the. Anti Corruption Establishment, Muzaffargarh does not appear to be above board. Admittedly, Muhammad Zahid got sanctioned the mutation in question with the active support of the revenue officials on the basis of fake and bogus document. The Anti Corruption Establishment introduced Muhammad Zahid as the complainant. The available record does not tell as to what ground/reasons weighed with the Anti Corruption Establishment, Muzaffargarh while introducing Muhammad Zahid as the complainant, who undoubtedly and admittedly got sanctioned the mutation in question on the basis of fake and bogus gift-deed. This is a conduct rather mis-conduct on the part of the local Anti Corruption Establishment, which cannot/should not be approved. A copy of this order may be sent to the Director General Anti Corruption Establishment, Punjab, Lahore (by name) for necessary action on administrative side.
8. In the given circumstances, the Director General Anti Corruption Establishment, Punjab, Lahore is expected to make over investigation of above said cases to an officer of good repute not amenable to any pressure.