1. SAHIB KHAN, C.J.---I intend to dispose of both Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 158 and 160 of 2014 as both the petitions under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Have been moved by the petitioners for quashment of FIR No, 26/2014 of FIA Police Station No, 14 Gilgit, under sections 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and section 409, P.P.C.
2. The facts narrated in the FIR are that the investigation agency after holding an inquiry found that the petitioners in both petitions along with co-accused committed the offences of embezzlement, misappropriation etc, to the public exchequer worth about two crore fifty lac (2,50,00,000) by misusing their official position as they were assigned the additional duties to run the centers established under the project known as "National Vocational Training Program" in Qilgit-Baltistan.
3. The matter was reported to the investigation agency by the then Provincial Finance Minister and the agency after thorough investigation lodged the quoted report against the named person and a complete challen has now been put in the competent Court for its trial. The petitioners who have been admitted to bail by the Courts are seeking quashment of FIR No, 26/2014 and all the proceedings carried on the basis of same FIR by the Investigating Officer.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners argued that the petitioner Syed Nabi Shah was assigned the duties of the project through order dated 31-10-2013 while the alleged offences were committed in the year 2010. That under subsection (5-A) of the section 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as the Act 1947), no officer below the rank of Inspector of Police can investigate any offence punishable under section 5(2) of the Act 1947. That the case of the petitioner do not fall in the definition and category of the Act 1947. That proper permission as required under the Federal Investigation Rules, 2002 have not been obtained before entering into the inquiry or lodging FIR by the Investigating Officer. That the co-accused has not been included in the proceedings having similar role. That petitioners being innocent and the proceedings against the petitioners being illegal are liable to be quashed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
5. On the other hand learned Deputy Attorney General, counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners have been involved in the offences punishable under section 5(2) of the Act 1947 and 409 Pakistan Penal Code as they being responsible to run the affairs of the projects committed misconduct, for which ample documentary evidence has been placed on file and complete challan of the case has been placed before the Court for trial. That the formal requirement of obtaining permission for inquiry/lodging report have been obtained by the investigator from the competent authority which is part of judicial file. Learned counsel for the respondents submits further that subsection (5-A) of section 5 requires only permission for arrest from the Magistrate in case of arrest of accused which is already been obtained by Sessions Judge Ghizer and the copies of the permission are presented in the Court. That there is no delay in holding the inquiry and lodging FIR as the matter was taken up on the complaint filed by complainant. The relevant law demands lodging FIR after complete inquiry in the corruption cases.
6. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, have gone through the relevant record, also gone through the laws/case laws referred by the learned counsel with their able assistance.
7. So far the point agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the delay occurred in lodging FIR as well as the proceedings carried by the investigation agency is concerned evidently the alleged offences have been committed in their official capacity by the accused persons while dealing with the routine affairs of the project which is a routine business and cannot come into the knowledge of anticorruption departments until and unless such nature of offence would not be dug out or reported by any of the affected person. Such delay could not be considered to be a result of false implication in the alleged offences or can be attributed as deliberation for mala fide involvement of the petitioners.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case and those persons having similar role for running the affairs of project were not involved in the present case by the prosecution. As against to this contention the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that all the concerned persons involyed in the case have been held responsible and challan has been submitted in the Court of law supported by ample documentary as well as oral evidence. Merely the oral plea taken by the petitioner through this petition for quashment of FIR and proceedings cannot be considered unless the trial Court after observing the necessary stages of trial could not hold that whether the petitioners are innocent?
9. The concept of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Does not mean to provide alternate forum to collect evidence to prove/disprove the guilt Of the accused hence, the submission of innocence at this stage is nothing except to override the legal scope of quoted sections.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the proceedings carried by the investigation agency was not in accordance to the provision provided as subsection (5-A) of section 5 the Act, 1947 or the rules framed for the purpose of investigation of the case under the Act, 1947.
11. I have gone through the provision wherein found nothing adverse, the required permission for arrest of accused has been obtained from the Sessions Judge instead of the Magistrate, however its validity would be examined during the course of trial.
12. Likewise the learned counsel for the respondents referred that other proceeding including lodging of FIR was strictly observed in accordance with relevant laws/rules of the Act, 1947 and their copies have been attached with the judicial case file before the trial Court.
13. So far the assigning of the charge of the project to the petitioner Syed Nabi Shah in 2013 is concerned his liabilities and involvement in the case will also be seen by the trial Court who is fully empowered at appropriate level to grant relief to the petitioner if found innocent. At the moment nothing is before the Court to give benefits to the petitioner and on this pretext whole proceedings could be quashed.
14. The petition under section 561-A; Cr.P.C. Does not cover the requirements provided in the sections for quashment of any FIR or any proceeding. Consequently, both the petitions quoted supra being meritless are here by dismissed. File.