MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, J.--- Through this writ petition, the petitioner (Hafiz Shahid Pervez Ahmad) seeks quashing of FIR No.34/2010 dated 31.08.2010 under sections 409/161 P.P.C. read with section 5 of the Anti- Corruption Establishment Act 1 1 of 1947 registered at police station ACE, Sahiwal.
2. The main ground urged in support of this writ petition is that in terms of Section 63 of the Cooperative Societies.
Act, 1925 no court could take cognizance of any offence punishable under the said act except on a complaint in writing made by the Registrar or by a person authorized by him for the said purpose, but here in' this case a private person lodged a complaint without any authorization as required by the Act, ibid.
3. The learned Assistant Advocate General opposed the above arguments with vehemence.
4. 1 have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.
5. Before proceeding further in the matter , I would like to reproduce Section 63 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925:- "63. Cognizance of of fences No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this act except on a complaint in writing made by the Registrar or by a person duly authorized, for the purpose, by him."
By bare reading of above clause, there remains no cavil to the proposition that the court would take cognizance of any 'offence punishable under the Act, ibid, only on a complaint which is either by the Registrar , or by a person authorized by him. It may be reemphasized here that the learned counsel for the petitioner could not refer any provision of the Act. ibid, that without filing of complaint by the authorities person, any restriction has been imposed on registration of the case, rather his sole argument is that court cannot take cognizance, except as provided in the above reproduced clause.
6. Here in this case, the admitted position is that after registration of the case the matter is still at the stage of investigation, may be, for the reason that a restraint order had been passed by this Court on 04.10.2010. In the above background, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the face of it, is based on incorrect notion, for the reason that registration of a criminal case or investigation thereon is altogether different terminology from taking of cognizance or initiation of proceedings before the learned trial court. Almost similar question earlier came under consideration before this Court in the case INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKIST AN and others versus Mian ASIM PAREED and others" (2006 CLD 625), and this court had created a distinction between the investigation of case and taking of cognizance and disapproved quashing of, by holding that:- "In the absence of any finding that the above mentioned offences mentioned in the F.I.R were false and malicious and in absence of a finding that if a particular forum or mode had been prescribed with respect to taking of cognizance of an offence then the same also implied prohibition regarding the registration of FIR., no such order could be passed nor the same could be approved. Needless to add that the registration of FIR and taking of cognizance of cases were two distinct and independent concepts under the criminal law; that if the intention of law- maker was to put any clog on the registration of F.IR then the Legislature would have said so specifically and that if the law put a condition only on the taking of cognizance then it could never he read to imply prohibition on registration of FIRs.
With reference to the above cited case, this Court in another case "PEER BAKHSH versus SHO, etc. (KLR 2015 Criminal Cases 211), held that investigation would include proceedings for the collection of evidence conducted by a police-of ficer or by any person (other than Magistrate) who is authorized by a Magistrate in this behalf and that the investigation consists of several steps to be taken by the Police Officer to ascertain whether any offence has been committed at all and if so by whom and what is the evidence on which the prosecution is based.
7. A criminal case is registered under section 154 Cr.P.C. and the investigation commences. During investigation material/evidence is collected from both the sides and thereafter it is seen by the 1.0 that there is sufficient evidence/material against the accused to proceed against him in the court. The purpose of investigation is to find out the truth and place the same before the court and it is duty of the Investigating Officer not only to set up a case of the complainant party with such evidence as could enable the court to record the conviction; but also to bring out, the truth. After the completion of investigation a report about the conclusion of investigation is prepared by the SHO under section 173 Cr .P.C. (Challan) and the same is put in court for judicial proceedings on it.
8. One of the basic steps in any criminal case is taking cognizance of such actions. Only after taking the cognizance of offences, the judiciary comes into picture. If we apply the dictionary meaning to the word - cognizance", it simply refers to becoming aware or getting the knowledge of any such offences. The core purpose of criminal procedure is to provide the accused a full and fair trial in accordanc e with the principles of natural justice. There are various steps which should be followed in order to dispense justice and bring the guilty to the book. These include pre-trial procedures such as information, registration of cases; arrests, search and seizures etc. determining jurisdiction of police and courts regarding investigation and trial. Trial procedure includes cognizance of offences, initiation of proceedings etc. and finally the execution of final decision. A plain and dictionary meaning of word "cognizance is 'taking note of 'taking account of `to know about' 'to gain knowledge about' 'awareness about certain things' etc. The common understanding of the term 'cognizance' is "taking judicial notice by a court of law, possessing jurisdiction, on a cause or matter presented before it so as to decide whether there is any basis for initiating proceedings and determination of the cause or matter 'judicially'. It may be further clarified here that when a magistrate applies his mind not for the purpose of proceeding as mentioned above, but for taking action of some other kind, like ordering investigation or issuing a search warrant for the purpose of investigation he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of the of fence.
9. It is thus quite obvious that registration of case and initiation/ conclusion of investigation are different terminologies from commencement of proceedings/taking of cognizance. The stage of cognizance as defined above and also used in Section 63 of the Act, ibid, would only come when after conclusion of investigation the entire material will be placed before the court for final adjudication. Therefore, for all intents and purposes Section 63 of the Act, ibid, did not restrict the registration of FIR and investigation conduct ed as a result of the FIR, as the Registrar or the authorized person under section 63, ibid during the course of investigation could file a complaint in writing before the Investigation Officer or he could file a complaint in writing before the court competent to take cognizance after completion of investigation and then the court could proceed on such complaint.
10. For what has been discussed above, respectfully following the dictum laid down by the apex Court as reproduced above; this petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.