' Raja Saeed Akram Khan, J.--The captioned appeal by leave of the Court has been filed against the judgment passed by the High Court on 4.9.2015, whereby the writ petition and the application for pre-arrest bail filed by the appellant, herein, have been dismissed.
2. The necessary facts for disposal of the instant appeal are that the appellant was a permanent employee of subordinate Judiciary and was serving as a Junior Clerk. He was removed from service vide order dated 13.5.2015 with a direction for registering the criminal case against him. In compliance of the order of the competent authority, Respondent No. 1 registered the FIR bearing No. 133/15 dated 14.5.2014 in the offence under Section 409, APC, on the application of Respondent No. 6 at Police Station City Muzaffarabad. During investigation, the case was transferred to Anti- Corruption Establishment, by Respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 8.7.2015 and the offence under Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1950 was added. The appellant filed an application for pre-arrest bail before the High Court on 8.5.2015. The interim bail was granted by the High Court vide order dated 18.5.2015. The appellant filed a writ petition for quashment of FIR No. 133/15 registered at City Police Station, Muzaffarabad being illegal and without lawful authority. The learned High Court through the impugned consolidated judgment dated 4.9.2015 dismissed the writ petition along with the application for grant of pre-arrest bail, hence, this appeal by leave of the Court.
3. Raja Sajjad Ahmed Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the impugned judgment passed by the High Court is against law and the facts of the case and the High Court failed to adhere to law on the subject. He further argued that the learned High Court fell in error of law while not taking into account that the FIR cannot be registered without lawful authority as the local police has no power to register the case against a public servant. In this way, the FIR was registered in sheer violation of Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1950 read with Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1997. He contended that the law is settled on the point that the things provided to be done in a prescribed manner must be done in that way and no deviation can be made from it but the learned High Court failed to take into consideration this principle of administration of justice. In continuation of the arguments, he submitted that Respondent No. 3, Deputy Inspector General of Police has no legal authority to transfer the case from Police Station City, Muzaffarabad to Anti-Corruption Establishment as no such provision exists in the relevant statute. He argued that the order impugned before this Court is not speaking one as the findings recorded by the learned High Court that no violation of law has been committed, are against the record.
4. On the other hand, Ch. Shoukat Aziz, Additional Advocate-General, while appearing on behalf of the respondents argued that mere registration of a case by the local police does not warrant quashment of the FIR. He contended that FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence which is mere an information regarding the commission of cognizable offence. When the learned counsel for the respondents was confronted with the situation that under which provision of law, the Deputy Inspector General of Police transferred the investigation of the case to the Anti-Corruption Establishment, he frankly conceded that no such provision is available on the statute. The Anti- Corruption is a sister department of Ehtesab Bureau and any case which is required to be investigated through Anti-Corruption Establishment cannot be transferred to it without the order of the Chairman Ehtesab Bureau. The investigation of the cases in the offences which are scheduled in the Act, 2001 can only be conducted on the order of Ehtesab Bureau who has supervisory jurisdiction over the Anti-Corruption Establishment. Section 5(1) of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred as Act, 1950) provides the schedule of offences, therefore, the Anti-Corruption Establishment is fully competent to investigate the matter.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. The controversy involved in the matter is that a case under Section 409, APC was registered against the accused- appellant at Police Station City, Muzaffarabad. Later on, the investigation was transferred to Anti- Corruption Establishment while adding Section 5(2) of Act, 1950. The accused-appellant approached the High Court for quashment of the FIR on the ground that no such case can be registered under Section 5(2) of Act, 1950, without adhering to Rule 8 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1997 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules, 1997).
The main argument of the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court is that while transferring the case, Rule 8 of Rules, 1997 has not been adhered to, therefore, we intend to examine this point at first. It would be appropriate to reproduce here the Rules 4,5,6,7 and 8 of the Rules, 1997 which read as under:- "4. Area of Jurisdiction of Director and Director General: The area of Jurisdiction of Director shall be Division of his posting while that of Director General shall be over his Department and attached department in which he shall be assisted by the Director and Deputy Directors. The Director and Deputy Director shall only deal with the category of cases which may be assigned to them by the Government from time to time by notification.
5. (1) After the preliminary inquiry, if the Director or Deputy Director finds that:-
(a) There is no ground to proceed further in the matter, the proceedings shall be dropped after recording reasons, and the complainant, if any, shall be informed;
(b) There are reasonable grounds to proceed further in the matter, he shall refer the case along with the relevant record to the appointing authority of the accused public servant for departmental proceedings under the efficiency and discipline Rules;
(2) If the Director or Deputy Director receives a complaint or gets information through reliable source regarding a serious case which does not fall within the category of the notification issued under Rule 4, he shall refer the same to the Director General. If a case is referred under sub-rule (2), the Director General after examining the same may return the same to the concerned Director or Deputy Director who shall deal with the same under these Rules.
6. Preliminary inquiries and investigations against Public Servants:--Preliminary inquiries and investigations shall be initiated by the Establishment against Public servants on complaints received from the Government, Heads of Department or other reliable sources.
7. Initiation of Preliminary inquiries against Public Servants:--A Deputy Director or an officer of or above his rank shall initiate preliminary inquiries in order to ascertain the identity of the complainant or informer and genuineness of the complaint/information.
8. Registration of cases:--(1) Criminal cases shall be registered by the Establishment under Prevention Act, 1950 and under such Sections of the Penal Code, as have been set forth in the schedule to the Act.
(2) Criminal Case shall be registered against accused public servants under the written orders of officers of establishment mentioned below;--
(a) Public Servants in BPS-1 to 15. (Not below a Director)
(b) Public Servants in BPS-1 and above (Director General)
' Provided that no case shall be, however, be registered by the Director General against the public servants of the status of Commissioner, Secretary to the Government, Head of attached Department and other officers of BPS-20 and above without the prior permission of- the Government.
' Provided further that for those public servants, mentioned in the first proviso who are in BPS-19, such permission shall be accorded by the Chief Secretary.
' Provided further that no prior permission shall be required for registration of a case against a public servant caught as a result of trap arranged by the Establishment under the supervision of Magistrate, in the act of committing an offence specified in the schedule to the Act. In such, a case a report shall immediately be made to the Chief Secretary, the Administrative Secretary and immediate superior of the public servant concerned if he is in BPS-16 and above and to the appointing authority and immediate superior if the public servant is in BPS-15 and below.
(3) If the competent authority under sub-rule (2) decides not to register a case, he shall record reasons therefore."
' After going through the above referred provisions of Rules, 1997, it appears that Rule 4 of the Rules, 1997 deals with the area of jurisdiction of the Director and the Director General. In Rule 5 of Rules, 1997, if the department finds that there are cogent reasons to proceed further, the Director or Deputy Director as the case may be, shall refer the case to the appointing authority of the accused, public servant, for departmental proceedings under the Efficiency & Discipline Rules. Similarly, Rule 6 of Rules, 1997 deals with the preliminary inquiries and investigation initiated by the Establishment against public servants on the complaints received from the Government. Rule 7 of Rules, 1997 postulates that the officer concerned shall initiate preliminary inquiries regarding the identity of the complainant or informer and the genuineness of the complaint. Thereafter, Rule 8 of Rules, 1997 comes into play that which officer will be the competent to order for registration of the case against the different categories of public servant, i.e., for public servant carrying grade BPS-1-15, authority is Director, whereas, for the public servant holding the grade BPS-16 and above, the Director is competent to issue orders for registration of the cases.
6. After going through the relevant provisions of law, it appears that the rule which has heavily been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal deals with the investigation/inquiry and registration of the case arising out of the complaint/information received against a public servant. Therefore, it has no nexus with the registration of the case against a person who has allegedly been found involved in a case registered by the police. When this position was confronted with the counsel for the appellant, he implicitly conceded the legal position and only submitted that the Ehtesab Bureau has supervisory jurisdiction over the Anti- Corruption Department. He requested that the accused has no confidence in the Anti-Corruption Department as he apprehends that the department shall not act fairly and in accordance with law, therefore, it would be appropriate to refer the case to the Chairman Ehtesab Bureau to get the matter investigated by any Investigating Officer deputed in the Ehtesab Bureau.
7. Here we would also like to observe that the Deputy Inspector General of 'Police has no power to transfer any case which falls in the scheduled offences under Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001 or Act, 1950.
The Act, 1950 is also included in the II schedule provided in Act, 2001 and the Ehtesab Bureau in the offences falling in Act, 1950 can investigate and try the same. Thus, the only authority with the powers to transfer the case for investigation is the Chairman Ehtesab Bureau under Section 20 of the Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001. Under Section 21(4) of the Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001, the responsibility for inquiry into an investigation of an offence alleged to have been committed under Act, 2001 shall rest on the Ehtesab Bureau to the exclusion of any other agency or authority, unless any such agency or authority is required to do so by the Chairman Ehtesab Bureau. Thus, the Chairman Ehtesab Bureau can validly issue an order for transfer of a case to another agency for investigation.
From the above, it can safely be held that the Ehtesab Bureau is fully competent to investigate into the matter scheduled in Act, 2001 and if the Chairman deems it proper to get a matter investigated from another agency then he can pass an appropriate order in this regard. In the case reported as Muhammad Shabbir Ahmed & another us. Ehtesab Bureau, Azad Kashmir through Chief Prosecutor and 16 others [2012 YLR 2207], wherein it has been held as under: "Thus keeping in view the nature of alleged criminal act of the appellants, prima facie the allegations levelled against them fall within the offence enumerated in Schedules I and II of the Ehtesab Bureau Act, therefore, the juxtaposition appreciation and analysis of the statutory provision makes it clear that any person whether he is a public office holder or not involved in commission of any of the scheduled offences of Ehtesab Bureau Act, can be investigated or inquired into by the Ehtesab Bureau."
8. While appreciating the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that only Anti- Corruption Department was competent to register criminal case against the appellant and investigate the same, it may be stated that the registration of criminal case which comes in the purview of Rules, 1997, no such embargo has been imposed under law. The officer In charge of the police station had the powers under Section 154, Cr.P.C, to register FIR on receiving information disclosing commission .Of cognizable offence. The registration of the case by the local police is not barred under Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1997. The proposition came under consideration before the apex Court of Pakistan in a case reported as Muhammad Yasin vs. S.S.P and others [2004 SCM R 866], in which it has been held as under:- "2. Muhammad Yasin accused approached the Lahore High Court with the Writ Petition No. 5370 of 2002 praying for the abashment of the said FIR essentially on the ground that since the said Yasin accused/petitioner was a public servant being the Secretary of the concerned Union Council, therefore, it was only the Anti-Corruption Establishment which was competent to register a criminal case and to investigate the same and the impugned FIR was an FIR which was illegal and of no legal effect. Through an order dated 3.4.2002 a learned single Bench of the Lahore High 'Court dismissed the said petition: Hence this petition.
3. It is not deniable that the provisions of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. Authorized an officer Incharge of a police station to record an FIR., if information was conveyed to him which disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence. It is also not denied that at least the offence punishable under Section 420 of the P.P.C. Was one such offence cognizable offence. Even if it is presumed for the sake of arguments, that the FIR in the present case could be registered only by the A.C.E., even then the FIR in question is protected through the law declared by this Court in the case 'State v. Bashir and others' PLD 1997 SC 408. In this view of the matter no exception could be taken to the impugned order passed by the Lahore High Court. This petition is therefore dismissed. Leave refused."
9. In view of the dictum laid down by the apex Court of Pakistan, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that as the registration of the case was illegal, therefore, the FIR is liable to be quashed, has no substance. The appellant has failed to make out any case for abashment of FIR.
' Resultant, finding no force this appeal is hereby dismissed with the observation made in the preceding paragraph. No order as to costs.