Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, with the following prayer:- "Before the esteemed court, this prayer on behalf of the petitioner is made, beseeching the Court's indulgence in light of the compelling legal arguments articulated heretofore.
In consideration of the petitioner's plight, it is prayed that this Honorable Court, in its august discretion, may be pleased to:
1. Direct the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) in deference to the principles of justice and the sanctity of due process, that the FIA proceeds with the petitioner's case in strict adherence to the stipulations enshrined in the F.I.A (Inquiries & Investigation) Rules, 2002, with particular emphasis on the mandates articulated under Rule 10(3). The petitioner beseeches this Honorable Court to eschew the adoption of a multiplicity of proceedings under the general law. Instead, a specific directive is sought to guide the FIA in conducting the petitioner's case in conformity with the specialized procedural framework delineated in the aforementioned Rules.
2. That the Honorable Court may kindly declare the current proceedings to the extent of the petitioner as ultra vires of the mandate provided in the FIA (Inquiries & Investigation) Rules, 2002, and hence a nullity to the extent of the petitioner.
In the pursuit of justice and the preservation of the rule of law, the petitioner earnestly implores the Court's discerning consideration of the legal submissions presented herein, with a view towards remedying the procedural infirmities and safeguarding the petitioner's constitutional rights and grant of any other relief that the Court may deem appropriate without prejudice to the above."
02. Brief facts of the matter are that multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) have been registered against the petitioner for the same incident under identical sections of the law by the Federal Investigation Agency, hence the instant writ petition.
03. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter-alia, contends that the action taken by the F.I.A is causing grave prejudice to the right of fair trial of the petitioner as well as is in violation of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973; the petitioner has been unwarrantedly implicated in eight (08) FIRs without any substantial evidence; all the FIRs are registered against the backdrop of the same scam, invoking identical legal provisions under sections 34, 109, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A PPC read with S.5(2) 1947, PCA; the FIRs are against the law and facts, same are outcome of the abuse of process of law which is unprecedented, result of colorable exercise of authority tainted with malafide, ulterior motives, a device of exploitation without jurisdiction; FIRs have been registered in violation of Federal Investigation Agency (Inquiry and Investigation) Rules, 2002, as no sanction from competent authority before conducting an inquiry or registration of FIRs has obtained by FIA, and has prayed to accept the instant writ petition.
4. Arguments heard, record perused.
5. The petitioner is nominated in the FIRs with specific role that while serving as Account Officer, in the office of Capital Development Authority (CDA), he acted dishonestly and fraudulently with ulterior motives for illegal gains, extorted an amount and caused huge loss to public ex-chequer.
6. Perusal of record reveals that numerous FIRs have been registered against the petitioner. The main stance argued by learned counsel is that the registration of FIRs is in violation of Federal Investigation Agency (Inquiry and Investigation) Rules, 2002, that no one has obtained sanction from the competent authority prior to the conducting of an inquiry or registration of FIRs.
07. In this regard, dictum has been laid down by the Federal Shariat Court and upheld by the apex Court through following judgments; i. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Government of Pakistan, Islamabad Vs. Zafar Awan (PLD 2005 Supreme Court 19). ii. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Government of Pakistan, Islamabad Vs. Zafar Awan, Advocate, High Court (PLD 1992 Supreme Court 72). iii. Zafar Awan Vs. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan (PLD 1989 Federal Shariat Court 84).
Whereby, it has been held that Rule 5 of Rules ibid is no more available to take refuge. It is specifically mentioned in the judgments supra that if Federal Government fails to bring amendment as directed, those provisions shall cease to hold the field after the period specified in all the three judgments i.e. PLD 2005 Supreme Court 19, PLD 1992 Supreme Court 72 and PLD 1989 Federal Shariat Court 84.
8. It has also been held in aforementioned judgments that: "It is narrated from the Holy Prophet that the previous nations were destroyed because they had different laws for high ups and the influential and others for the masses".
9. It has also been held that: "The provision of the sanction of the President, the Governor of a Province or any other executive authority is, therefore, repugnant to Qur'an and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet and it is, therefore, desired that the President shall take steps so that the above laws are suitably amended before the 1st of January, 1990 failing which the provision requiring the previous sanction or a sanction of the President or a Governor of a Province or any executive authority shall cease to have effect." (Emphasis supplied)
10. Decision of the Federal Shariat Court and the Supreme Court was also upheld by the Supreme Court in Shariat Review Petition decided on 11.10.2004, whereby it was held that: "The review petitions being devoid of force are dismissed. However, necessary amendments be made up to 31st March 2005, failing which these provisions of law will cease to have effect."
11. The challan/reports under Section 173 Cr.P.C have been submitted in the learned trial Court.
12. The petitioner has alternate and efficacious remedy of filing petition U/S 265-K Cr.P.C for acquittal at any stage in the learned trial Court.
13. It has also been held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case titled as Col. Shah Sadiq Vs. Muhammad Ashiq and others (2006 SCMR 276) that: "The learned High Court erred in law in accepting constitutional petition by quashing the F.I.R. at the initial stage which was not in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in the following judgments:--
(i) Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammal Khan and 3 others PLD 1967 SC 317; Mohsin Ali and another v. The State 1992 SCMR 229; (iii) Abdul Rehman v. Muhammad Hayat Khan and others 1980 SCMR 311; (iv) Marghoob Alam and another v. Shamas Din and another 1986 SCMR 303; (v) Sheikh Muhammad Vameen v. The State 1973 SCMR 622; (vi) Bashir Ahmad v. Zafar-ul-Islaam and others PLD 2004 SC 298; (vii) Kh. Nazir Ahmad's case AIR 1945 PC p.18; (viii) Shahnaz Begum v.
The Honourable Judges of the High Court of Sindh and Balochistan and another PLD 1971 SC 677;
(ix) Brig. (Retd.) Imtiaz Ahmad v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Interior Division, Islamabad and 2 others 1994 SCMR 2142.
14. Guidance in this respect is also taken from the law laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case titled as Director General, Anti Corruption Establishment, Lahore and others Vs. Muhammad Akram Khan and others (PLD 2013 SC 401), wherein it is held that: "The law is quite settled by now that after taking of cognizance of a case by a trial court the FIR registered in that case cannot be quashed and the fate of the case and of the accused persons challenged therein is to be determined by the trial court itself. It goes without saying that if after taking of cognizance of a case by the trial court an accused person deems himself to be innocent and falsely implicated and he wishes to avoid the rigorous of a trial then the law has provided him a remedy under sections 249-A/265-K, Cr.P.C to seek his premature acquittal if the charge against him is groundless or there is no probability of his conviction."
15. It has also been held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case titled as Mst. Kaniz Fatima Vs. Muhammad Salim (2001 SCMR 1493) that: "Where a particular statute provides a self-contained machinery for the determination of questions arising under the Act and where law provides a remedy by appeal or revision to another Tribunal fully competent to give any relief any indulgence to the contrary by the High Court is bound to produce a sense of distrust in statutory Tribunals and constitution petition without exhausting remedy provided by the statute would not lie in the circumstances".
The same principle has been enunciated in a case titled as Muhammad Abbasi Vs. S.H.O.
BharaKahu and 7 others (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 969), wherein it is held that: "In our view where alternate remedy is more convenient, beneficial and likely to set the controversy at naught completely, jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be exercised".
16. In another case titled as Rana Aftab Ahmad Khan Vs. Muhammad Ajmal and another (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 1066), it is held that: "We have considered the above and are constrained to hold that the constitutional jurisdiction (reference Article 199) of the High Court in all the cases cannot be invoked as a matter of right, course or routine, rather such jurisdiction has certain circumventions which the Court is required to keep in view while exercising the extraordinary discretionary power".
17. For what has been discussed above and the laws laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, instant writ petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed in limine being meritless, with no order as to costs.