SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, J.---Through the instant petition the petitioner seeks quashing of F.1.R. No. 73 of 2009, dated 4-9-2009. Registered under section 409, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention Corruption Act, 1947, in Police Station, Anti-Corruption Establishment. Sargodha, in which the allegation against the petitioner and three other co-accused is that they while posted as Registry Moharar, Revenue Department, Sargodha, indulged in misappropriation of Rs.3.00.000 by getting printed the Corporation Fee from a local press.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not committed any offence and there is no evidence of receiving or misappropriating any public money by the petitioner. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner has already been punished by the department as his two increments have been withheld. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner cannot be punished twice according to law and proceeding further with the aforesaid F.I.R. Would amount to the abuse of the process of law.
3. From the report and parawise comments submitted by respondent No.1 it is revealed that during the course of investigation, it was proved that the petitioner and his co-accused had received Rs.1,37,315 on 17-3-2008 in connection with the registries, and when their fraud was disclosed, they deposited the said amount in the Govt. Treasury on 19-5-2009. The petitioner having been found guilty of the offence, judicial action was recommended to lie taken against the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer. The investigation has been completed and the challan submitted to the concerned Court.
4. The High Court in the exercise of powers under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 cannot assume the role of an investigator or substitute the finding of guilt or innocence of any accused recorded by the investigating officer. The challan has already been submitted in the trial Court. Not only from the bare perusal of the F.I.R., but also from the deposit of the embezzled amount in the Govt. Treasury by the petitioner and other co-accused prima facie, a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. However, if the petitioner feels that the prosecution has not sufficient incriminating material against him to prove his guilt, he may approach the learned trial Court for seeking his acquittal. Any interference by this Court at this stage would certainly tantamount to stifling the normal course of law, which is not the mandate of law, under which the instant petition has been filed.
5. In view of what has been discussed above. I do not find any merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed.