YAR MUHAMMAD,J.---Through this petition the petitioner has sought a direction to Director General FIA, Islamabad restraining him from conducting investigation into the process vide which the petitioner and other authorities of Excise and Taxation Department Gilgit-altistan have purchased computerized number plates, weapons and made some appointments against some vacant positions in the department.
2. The brief facts leading to this dispute as divulging from the petition are that Excise and Taxation Department Gilgit-Baltistan some times before purchased computerized number plates and weapons for which funds were allocated. Later on it was alleged that the concerned authorities have committed financial embezzlement in the name of the purchase of above items. Resultantly, an Inspection Team was constituted who prepared a report vide which it sent its recommendation against some officials including the petitioner. In the meantime, the petitioner who was then holding the post of Deputy Director was asked to appear before an authorized officer of National Accountability Bureau Regional Sub-Office, Gilgit. The petitioner accordingly appeared there eventually the authorized officer recorded his statement. Consequent upon these proceedings the petitioner was suspended on 24-4-2014 from his service but reinstated after carrying an enquiry. In the meantime, the respondent-4 telephonically contacted with the petitioner and asked him to attend the office of FIA situated at Gilgit. In compliance of the said directive he appeared there where he came to know that some proceedings about the purchase of number plates and the other items have also been initiated by respondent-4 and thereby the petitioner was directed to appear before respondent-5 for investigation purpose. It has claimed that now the competent authority of the Department has again decided to hold a Departmental Inquiry to probe into the matter and for that purpose a committee has been constituted. It is further emanating from the petition that a suit is also pending adjudication in the court of competent jurisdiction at Gilgit filed by a person to whom the contract for supply of number plates was awarded and that since the petitioner is being plus-double jeopardized due to carrying enquiry by the Department, investigation conducting by NAB and FIA and in view of that the petitioner requested the respondent-4 to abstain himself from conducting investigation but such request was not acceded to, hence this petition.
3. We have heard Mr. Shaukat Ali Advocate for the petitioner and the Special Prosecutor to NAB and Deputy Attorney General assisted by respondent-5 for FIA.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that National Accountability Bureau and a departmental committee appointed by the competent authority simultaneously are conducting enquiry/investigation A to probe into the matter as such the interference of FIA is illegal therefore, the respondent-4 be directed to restrain himself from conducting enquiry. The Deputy Attorney General assisted by respondent-5 on the other hand contended that under law FIA is an independent institution in carrying inquiries/investigations into offences falling in its schedule as such the instant petition being based on mala fide is not entertainable as such liable to be dismissed.
5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter in hand and have examined the same in the light of relevant law. The institutions both NAB and the FIA have been established under special law and the purpose of their establishment is to prevent corruption and illegal appropriation of funds under one's case as such both are free to conduct investigation in offences falling in their respective schedules. In the present case the departmental authority is probing into the role of the petitioner whereas anti-corruption establishment is considering the same from the angle of financial embezzlement committed by the authorities of the department in connivance with the person to whom the contract was awarded while the NAB is busy in finding out the facts qua the alleged fraud committed in the name of purchasing of above items. Thus, we are of the opinion that it will not be fair for the petitioner to say that he is being proceeded against before different forums qua the same allegation.
6. Till now no FIR has been registered against the petitioner or any other official of the Department rather the FIA and the NAB are carrying investigations at their ends to find out the facts which would also suggest that after conducting detailed enquiry the petitioner may be exonerated from all charges thus, we are of the clear opinion that at this stage fastening hands of the establishments from conducting investigation into the alleged offence will be illegal in the eye of law.
7. At this stage,' this is neither a case of abuse of process of law nor a case where this court should intervene to secure the ends of justice rather any interference with the prodess of investigation at this stage may itself amount to abuse of process of law thus, required to be avoided. There are many judgments passed by the apex court' of the Country deprecating the actions of subordinate courts interfering with the process of investigation undertaken by the police or any other competent Agency. In a case reported in PLD 1967 SC 317, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the principle of law saying that the powers given to court by section-561-A, Cr.P.C. Can certainly not be so utilized as to interrupt the ordinary course of criminal procedure as laid down in the procedural statue rather the law suggests that every investigation should be allowed to proceed and to go ahead in accordance with law. It is not the intention of law that by exercising of power vested in courts the normal course of trial before a court of law should be diverted or the process of investigation hampered which would defeat the spirit of law.
8. The petitioner's version that he is being plus double Jeopardized is necorrect. Both the Establishments i,e, NAB and FIA are at liberty to conduct the investigation into the matter which would be helpful to bring out the truth. Therefore, binding hands of these Establishments at this stage from conducting enquiries in different angles will be the 'actual abusing of the process of law. We have also considered this point too and came to the conclusion that the petitioner could not be double jeopardized because protection has been provided under section 403, Cr.P.C. In this regard. While forming such view we have also taken help from the judgment reported in 2013 PCr.LJ 1119 Lahore.
9. For reasons what have been discussed above, we find no merit in this petition, hence the same is declined and dismissed. File.