' SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.---The applicant in this Criminal Miscellaneous Application was at the material time posted as Inspector in Excise and Taxation Department. F.I.R. No,59 of 2006 was registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Karachi on 20-12-2006. It was registered after inquiry into complaint No,166 of 2006 by Mst. Almas Akbar Ali, in which she alleged that her father was a retired person of 76 years of age and who in 1946 had owned a property bearing Plot No,LY-12/25, Lea Market, Karachi, where having constructed a shop on the ground floor he was running business for along time. She stated that 4 or 5 years ago due to heart problem his father closed the shop. One Muhammad Zaman Khan in collusion with the Excise and Taxation Department A-Division Karachi got prepared PT-1 Form in respect of her father's shop and after breaking the lock entered and occupied it and thereafter represented himself as owner of the shop.
During the inquiry complainant's father Akbar Ali showed title documents and the said Muhammad Zaman Khan could not produce any title documents. Record of Excise and Taxation Department A- Division was secured which revealed that in the year, 2001, Muhammad Zaman Khan in the office of present applicant without any title documents submitted a survey form showing him as the owner of the said shop and the present applicant without confirming title of the shop issued PT-1 No,AK5- 1S-4 Serial No,861 dated 30-6-2001 in favour of the said Muhammad Zaman Khan. Thereafter it was stated in the F.I.R. That after approval of competent authority (ACC-II) conveyed vide Deputy Director ACE Karachi No,ACK/2006/9707 dated 11-12-2006, case under sections 420, 466, 468, 471, 109, P.P.C. R/W section 5(2) of Anti-Corruption Act, 1947 was registered against the present applicant and the private person, Muhammad Zaman Khan.
2. Learned Judicial Magistrate on 23-11-2002 passed an order by which he ordered sealing of shop premises. Criminal Revision No,1 of 2003 was filed against that order and Honourable District and Sessions Judge, Karachi South vide order dated 31-1-2003 accepted that revision observing that the applicant cannot be dispossessed in this way, set aside the sealing order and ordered that shop be de-sealed and applicant be put in possession. Challan was filed and thereafter charge was framed on 28-2-2008 by Judge Anti-Corruption (Provincial) Karachi. Application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Was filed on or about 25-7-2008. It was stated in the application that as per minutes of the ACC-II meeting held on 8-10-2007 addressed to Deputy Director Anti-Corruption, the case of the present accused had not been recommended for trial for corruption. Prayer was made for his acquittal. On this application on 21-10-2008 the following order was passed:-- "Heard Advocate for accused/ applicant Ziauddin and learned ADL for State. Learned D.A. Argues that ACC-II has not recommended the accused for trial but only for departmental action as such in view of decision given by Honourable High Court Cr.M.A. No,66 of 2008 applicant/accused may be acquitted under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Learned ADL has opposed this application on the ground that decision of ACC-II has been challenged before ACC-I which is pending adjudication as such arguments have no force so far decision passed by Honourable High Court. Learned ADL argues that applicant was not party to it, as such same has no application so far case of present accused/applicant is concerned. He prays for dismissal of application.
' I have gone through the order passed by Honourable High Court. It is clearly held therein that department committee has decided for departmental action against ADO Mohsin Ansari, M. Iqbal and Azam son of (sic) No departmental action is decided against applicant/ accused as such it cannot be said that applicant/accused is entitled to have the benefit of decision of ACC-II. More so this decision of ACC-II is under challenge before ACC-I and still pending adjudication even applicant/ accused was not party in this application before Honourable High Court and case of any applicant. M. Iqbal was closed.
' So far ground raised by learned counsel for accused/applicant that charge against him is groundless, I am not in agreement with him. There are clear allegations in F.I.R. That accused Zaman with active connivance of accused Ziauddin got false PT-1 in his favour and in such circumstances it cannot be said that charge against accused/applicant is groundless and that there is no probability of conviction of accused in the case. If it is proved that false PT-1 was issued to co-accused Zaman Khan with active connivance of accused/applicant, then there is every chance in recording of conviction in this case.
' In view of above, I am of the view that present application merits no consideration and is accordingly dismissed."
3. This order has been challenged in the present criminal miscellaneous application. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was an Officer in Grade-16 and under the provisions of Sindh Enquiries and Anti-Corruption Rules, 1993 DCO was competent officer and his case was to be dealt with and approved by ACC-II. No such permission had been produced in the Court.
4. Learned A.P.G. Submitted that permission was given by the Chief Secretary because at that time ACC-I was not working and Chief Secretary was Chairman of ACC-I. He referred to rule 20 of the Sindh Enquiries and Anti-Corruption Rules, 1993, wherein suo motu powers have been given to the Chief Secretary. He referred to various documents to which I will refer later in this order. He submitted that the property belonged to private person and accused has manipulated the record.
Mst. Almas Akbar daughter of the complainant submitted that the order passed by the Court below is a well-reasoned order. She also referred in this regard to the charge sheet.
5. While exercising his right of reply, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in Rule 20 the word used is "may" and this power has been illegally exercised by the Chief Secretary and further submitted that order passed by the Chief Secretary is not a speaking order. He further submitted that charge was framed on 28-2-2008 whereas approval was granted on 3-12-2008. He further stated that this is not a curable irregularity but an illegality which goes to roots of the matter and has initiated the entire proceedings.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and have also gone through the record. Under the provisions of the Sindh Enquiries and Anti-Corruption Rules, under Rule 3, three Anti-Corruption Committees have been constituted are as under:--
(1) Provincial Anti-Corruption Com-mittee abbreviated as (ACC-I).
(2) Divisional Anti-Corruption Com-mittee abbreviated as (ACC-II).
(3) District Anti-Corruption Committee abbreviated as (ACC-III).
7. It is further provided that Committee No,1 shall be headed by the Chief Secretary. Rule 4 provides for functions of the Committee and these include review of cases of misconduct leading to corruption in services and suggest measures for its eradication. Rule 20 provides as under:-- "Suo Motu, Examination.--The Chief Secretary, the Chairman and Director (Anti-Corruption) may call for and examine the record of any case and may give such directions as may be deemed fit."
8. On 2-1-2009 Deputy Director Anti-Corruption, Headquarters wrote a letter to the Deputy Director enclosing therewith a copy of letter SO(AC)6-85/ 2008 dated 15-12-2008 along with a copy of Note to Chief Secretary signed with the approval for prosecuting accused Ziauddin Pathan and Muhammad Zaman Khan. Consequently it was stated that Investigating Officer was directed to put up final challan. Letter dated 15-12-2008 was written by the Section Officer by which he informed the Director Anti-Corruption about approval by the Chief Secretary being competent authority/ Chairman ACC-I.
9. Before 1 refer to the Note for the Chief Secretary, it may relevant to point out that meeting of ACC-II was held on 8-10-2007. It had been recommended that the present applicant be prosecuted. The Committee did not agree with the recommendations of Anti-Corruption Establishment and decided that the departmental action against the applicant be taken.
Thereafter note was prepared and placed before the Chief Secretary. On 16-1-2008 after referring to the decision of ACC-II, it was stated as under:-- "In view of the, above, the decision of ACC-II Karachi dated 8-10-2007, is agitated before ACC-I, further seeking permission to prosecute accused Ziauddin Pathan Inspector Excise Property Tax A- Division and beneficiary Muhammad Zaman Khan in the Court of law.
10. On this note on 12-1-2009 Chief Secretary directed that it be put up in ACC-I meeting. Thereafter again a Note was put up to the Chief Secretary on 3-12-2008 and it was stated in the Note as under:-- "11. The matter could not be placed before ACC-I meeting as the cases of Excise and Taxation Department were not included in the agenda of last three meetings of ACC-I.
12. In view of the above, matter is again submitted to Chief Secretary Sindh in his capacity as Chairman ACC-I for seeking permission to prosecute accused Ziauddin Pathan, Inspector, Excise Property Tax A-Division and beneficiary Muhammad Zaman Khan in the Court of law."
11. On this Note the Chief Secretary wrote "para 12 is approved." With this background one may refer to Rule 20 again. Under this rule Chief Secretary has been given a suo motu, overriding power and he can call for and examine the record of any case and may give such directions as may be deemed fit. The argument of the learned counsel for the applicant was twofold. Firstly he submitted that the order passed by the Chief Secretary is not a speaking order. In my opinion when a departmental senior functionary considers an inquiry report passed by an Inquiry Committee or detailed report by a lower functionary and records his agreement it is not necessary that he should re-tell all the reasons as have been stated in the inquiry report or in the report of lower functionary.
Therefore, order of the Chief Secretary, since it is passed on the basis of a report submitted to him, cannot be said to be a non-speaking.
12. The second ground of attack was that permission was granted after the case had been initiated.
The final Challan was submitted on 12-1-2009 and permission was granted before final Challan was submitted. Therefore, the irregularity if any stood cured because the departmental authorities waited for final approval before submitting final Challan.
13. All the rules and regulations are to foster the cause of justice and are to be B used and interpreted in the aid of justice and not for thwarting or throttling or strangulating justice. The act of wrong doing in this case was allegedly done somewhere in 2001; Complaint was lodged in 2006; F.I.R. Was registered on 20-12-2006; approved was given in December, 2008; and final Challan was filed in January, 2009: It speaks a lot about snail pace of bureaucratic work. Justice and fairness demands that guilt or innocence of the accused be decided at the earliest c possible. Prolonged litigation is, in a sense, torture not only for the accused but also of the complainant and the prosecutor. For latter more so in this case, it is alleged by the complainant that their property is in illegal possession of a person who the complainant has alleged has no title to that property.
Therefore this Criminal miscellaneous application is dismissed and the trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial with due dispatch.