RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.---As common questions of law are involved in the above mentioned writ petitions, so these are being decided through this single judgment.
2. Akbar Khan son of Sardar Khan resident of Khana Boki Tehsil Dina, District Jhelum, has prayed for quashment of F.I.R. No,14 of 2010 under section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act and under sections 468/471, 218, 420, P.P.C., F.I.R. No, 16 of 2010 under section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act and under sections 468/471, 218, 420, P.P.C., F.I.R. No, 18 of 2010 under section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act and under sections 468/471, 218, 420, P.P.C., F.I.R. No,19 of 2010 under section 5(2)
Prevention of Corruption Act and under sections 468/471, 218, 420 P.P.C., F.I.R. No,20 of 2010 under section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act and under sections 468/471, 218, 420 P.P.C., F.I.R. No, 21/2010 u/s 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act and under sections 468/471, 218; 420 P.P.C. F.I.R. No, 22 of 2010 under section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act and and under sections 468/471, 218, 420, P.P.C., F.I.R. No, 23 of 2010 under section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act and under sections 468/471, 218, 420, P.P.C., inter alia on the grounds that Anti-Corruption Establishment is a special agency established for investigation of certain offences relating to the corruption by the public servants and cannot decide the matters as to genuineness or otherwise of the mutations or sale deeds; that the ACE cannot initiate the inquiry or register the case without orders/complaint of the head of department and simply on the application of the private person; that the committee constituted on the recommendations of respondent No,9 was not vested with the powers to hold inquiry and pass an order for registration of the cases as the members of the committee included the officer before whom the appeals are preferred so the petitioner was left with no remedy and cannot seek relief from the appellate forum and as such the whole action is tainted with malice; that the action was initiated on the directive of Chief Minister's Secretariat and no independent inquiry was conducted by the committee or the ACE and F.I.Rs, are motivated out of sheer malice and are result of connivance with the ACE; that order dated 15-10-2009 of the District Officer (Revenue) has been assailed before the competent authority in the revenue hierarchy and as such neither the F.I.R. could have been registered nor the investigation could have been initiated; that the respondent No,9 illegally assumed the jurisdiction and without following the prescribed procedure wrongly passed the orders regarding review of mutations; that the allegation of fraud should have been established before the civil Court through a regular civil suit and the revenue authorities could have not declared duly attested mutations as fraudulent or illegal; that the orders were not passed by respondent No,9 and he could not review the same; that the review petitions were not competent and the orders in this respect were passed in mechanical manner; that the petitioner has not been dealt with in accordance with law and as such his basic rights under the constitution have been infringed and that the impugned orders are not speaking and self explanatory.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the above mentioned contentions has contended that now the matter is pending before the EDO(R) and as such the ACE cannot proceed with the investigation. In this respect reliance is placed on 1969 PCr.LJ 411 and PLD 1972 SC 353. It is also urged that ACE cannot assume jurisdiction in the cases involving the dispute of title over the immovable property and has been established only to Combat corruption, bribery and embezzlement of public money. In support of these contentions reliance is placed on 2009 M LD 25.
4. Controverting these arguments, learned counsel for the respondents and learned A.A.-G. have contended that no doubt the complaints were moved before the Prime Minister and in the Chief Minister's Secretariat but the preliminary inquiry was conducted by the high power Committee comprising of the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division Rawalpindi, Executive District Officer (Rev)
Jhelum, Director Land Record Lahore, Executive District Officer (Rev) Gujrat and Deputy District Officer (Rev) Sohawa and they held that the mutations were result of fraud and were illegally attested and that the official record was also tampered with. Thereafter inquiry was also conducted by the ACE and in result of the findings of the inquiry committee, the case was registered and the investigation is being conducted. The allegation of political influence is vehemently denied and it is urged that two different independent committees had held that prima facie the commission of offence by the private persons in connivance and in collusion with the government servants is made out. It is thus urged that the court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction cannot quash the F.I.Rs, merely a revision petition is pending before the Executive District Officer (Rev) and bald allegation of exercise of political influence. In support of contentions raised reliance is placed on 2010 PCr.LJ Karachi 351, 2010 PCr.LJ Peshawar 558, 2006 SCM R 276 and 1996 SCM R 186.
5. The mere fact that the complainant had moved application regarding commission of fraud and forgery by the petitioner and by the government servants to the Prime Minister and Chief Minister Secretariats does not show that the F.I.Rs, have been registered due to any political pressure or the same are result of malice on the part of the complainant or the government functionaries. A high power committee headed by the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division Rawalpindi with four senior officers as members had made the recommendations after thorough probe that those involved in the case should be brought to justice and the law department be asked to follow up the case regarding cancellation of illegal registered deeds. The District Officer (Rev) had ordered after appraisal of record and obtaining the reports from the field staff that the ACE be moved for action against the government servants and others involved in the commission of the offence. The inquiry conducted by two teams as mentioned above had held that prima facie the government servants mentioned in the reports and the private persons are involved in the commission of offence so the ACE had the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter. The contention that the inquiry was conducted without affording an opportunity of hearing and without bringing the version of the petitioner on the record is also false as the record reveals that the petitioner appeared on 21-7- 2010 and got his statement recorded. His son Dilbar also got recorded his statement on 25-6-2010.
No civil suit is pending. The mere fact that the revision petition has been filed before the EDO (Rev) is not sufficient to stay the proceedings in the ACE, which is competent forum for investigation of such cases. The case law cited at the bar is not applicable on the facts of the present case. The contention regarding correctness or otherwise of the commissions and omissions on the part of government servants and others cannot be probed into by this Court through exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. No ground for quashment of F.I.Rs, forming subject matter of the above mentioned petitions is available. In this respect reliance is placed on 2006 SCM R 276, 1996 SCM R 186 and 2010 PCr.LJ 558. The writ petitions are without merits ,nd the same are hereby dismissed.