' Since, common question of law and fact is involved in the instant petition (Crl. Revision No, 344 of 2015) as well as Crl. Revision No, 272-2015, therefore, the same are being decided through this single order.
2. In both the revision petitions, the petitioners have assailed the vires of order dated 21.09.2015 (Crl.
Revision No, 344-2015) and order dated 13.07.2015 (Crl. Revision No, 272-2015), whereby the Court below, while disagreeing with the cancellation reports submitted by the police, summoned the accused of the case to face trial.
3. Muhammad Rizwan Baber, Dr. Atta Zafar and Abdul Tawab, petitioners were charged for an offence falling under Section 161, PPC read with Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, vide FIR No, 18/2012, registered with Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Multan. After conducting investigations in the case, a cancellation report was prepared and the same was placed before the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Multan, who, vide impugned order dated 21.09.2015, disagreed with the cancellation report and ordered for summoning of the petitioners to face trial.
4. Similarly, Munir Ahmad, Muhammad Arshad and Muhammad Zahid, were charged for an offence falling under Section 409, PPC read with Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, vide FIR No, 15/2013, registered with Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Vehari and after the investigations, cancellation report was prepared and sent to the Court where the Court, vide impugned order dated 13.07.2015, disagreed with the same and summoned the respondents to face trial in the case.
5. Parties heard. Record perused.
6. The learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Multan, while disagreeing with the cancellation reports, has observed that the Investigating Officer, cannot recommend cancellation of case or droppage of the same, at investigation stage. Under this misdirection, the Court proceeded to disagree with the cancellation reports and summoned the respondents to face trial. The observation made by the Court below amounts to withdrawal of the powers from the Investigating Officer, to prepare discharge report in the case which is against the spirit of Sections 154 to 157, Cr.P.C. Under Section 154, Cr.P.C., SHO of the police station is bound to record statement of a person reporting the commission of cognizable offence whereas, under Section 155, Cr.P.C., if, SHO finds that offence committed, is non-cognizable, then to seek permission from the learned Magistrate to investigate the same. Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, authorizes the In-charge of the police station to investigate any cognizable offence whereas under Section 157, Cr.P.C., if, from the information received or otherwise, an Officer Incharge of the police station has reasons to suspect the commission of offence, he shall forthwith, send a report of the same to learned Magistrate. This section bestows jurisdiction upon the Incharge of the police station to send report to the concerned Court when he suspects the commission of cognizable offence. Further under Section 158, Cr.P.C., every report sent to the learned Magistrate under Section 157, Cr.P.C., is required to be submitted through such superior officer of the police. These two Sections sufficiently authorize the Investigating Officer to prepare report and send it to the higher officers for onward transmission to the Court. According to Article 24.5 of the Police Rules, 1934, the cancellation report through superior officer of police, is required to be submitted before the Court. These provisions of law, sufficiently negate the observation given by learned Court where it was held that the investigating agency, cannot recommend cancellation of case or droppage of the same, summarily. In this view of the matter, the orders passed by the Court below, are found to be in violation of above said provisions of law, as such, the same are liable to be set aside.
7. For the foregoing reasons, both the revision petitions are accepted and the orders impugned in these petitions are set aside. The learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Multan, is directed to reconsider the cancellation reports prepared by the investigating agency in the light of afore- noted provisions of law and then to make his opinion.