' This petition under Section 10 of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, read with Sections 561-A, 435/439 Cr. P.C, calls in question order dated 18-7-2013, passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Multan, whereby, he disagreed with the police report regarding discharge of the accused-petitioner and directed for submission of challan against the accused- petitioner. Similarly, vide order dated 23.8.2013, non-bailable warrants of the petitioner were also issued.
2. It appears that during the investigation of the case FIR No. 26 of 2003, registered under Sections 420/468/471/109 PPC, read with Section 5(2)47 of PCA, at Police Station Lodhran, it transpired that pert sarkar of Mutations No. 2411 and 2416 were missing. Accordingly, on the direction of the then learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, case FIR No. 8 of 2007 under Section 409, PPC, read with Section 5(2)47 PCA, was registered against certain police officials including Investigating Officers of case FIR No. 26 of 2003. However, during the investigation, the matter between Waqeeli Begum Complainant of case FIR No. 26 of 2003 and the accused persons, who happened to be her real sons stood patched up. Yet, investigation in case FIR No. 8 of 2007 continued and all the I.Os and other accused persons were exonerated. Ultimately, the present petitioner was implicated in the said case, but after thorough investigation report for his discharge was also submitted before the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Multan, who vide order dated 18-7-2013 disagreed with the discharge report and directed for submission of challan against him. Subsequently, vide order dated 23.8.2013 non-bailable warrants were also ordered to be issued against the petitioner.
3. It is in this background that the petitioner has assailed the said order through filing of the instant petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that under the law the learned Special Judge Anti- Corruption could take cognizance on the basis of the report submitted by the police and could not ask for submission of challan as laid down in case of Naseer and others reported as 2011 SCM R 1430. Further submits that trial against the petitioner, if commenced would be a futile exercise due to lack of any incriminating evidence against him and that well reasoned report regarding discharge of the accused was disagreed by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption on flimsy grounds.
5. Conversely, learned law officer contested the petition. Although he has conceded that challan could not be ordered to be submitted against the accused-petitioner and the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption could proceed on the basis of report already submitted.
6. Having gone though the record it appears that sufficient evidence was not available against the petitioner to connect him with the commission of the offence for which the learned Special Judge wants him to be tried and the report submitted by the Investigating agency was well reasoned and did not call for summoning of the accused through non-bailable warrants nor submission of Callahan. The law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is quite applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, therefore, by relying upon the said precedent I accept this petition. The order impugned is hereby set aside.