1. ' ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, J.-- This petition has been filed with the prayer that fresh/present investigation launched by the respondent No,1 with the F.I.A. Immigration and Anti-smuggling, Karachi, against the petitioner and also that all proceedings pending and action taken in pursuance thereof be declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. ' The facts as derived from the petition and the documents filed therewith are that on 28-2-1988, one Amir Ali and three others while proceeding to U.S.A. Via Bangkok Flight No,TG.508 'were off- landed by Inspector Raja Ajaib Khan at Karachi Airport as the visas affixed on their passports by the Consulate-General United States of America at Karachi were found to be forged. An enquiry was ordered and during the enquiry it was found that they had paid a sum of Rs,55,000 per head alongwith their passports and N.O.C. To a fake agent Shahzado at Hotel Bloom Luxury, Karachi, on 25-2-1986 in presence of Miss Nazneen and her brother Saleem and that on 27-2-1986 their passports duly endorsed with forged visas alongwith their tickets were returned to them by the said fake agent Shahzado. Consequently, an F.I.R. Was lodged being No,194/1986, under section 6 (1)(e) and (h) Passports Act, 1974. Subsequently, one Miss Almas Shahabuddin, the sister of said Nazneen gave an application to the Deputy Director Immigration and Passports, F.I.A. Karachi, on 7- 4-1984, wherein she specifically stated that on the same night the petitioner alongwith two persons came to their flat, where her sister Nazneen and brothers Suleman and Saleem were present. The petitioner told them that said Nazneen had arranged those forged visas. She also in the said application alleged that the petitioner had demanded money and was paid Rs,50,000 in cash, but he demanded further Rs,24,000 as fine for the said four persons, which was refused and then they were taken by the petitioner to his house. Further allegations were also made in the application against the petitioner and respondent 2, Mirza Nabi Jan Baig. The copy of this application has also been produced by the petitioner. Consequently, second F.I.R. No, 805/1986 was registered against the petitioner and respondent 2 by the F.I.A., under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Act II of 1947. The petitioner has also filed affidavits including that of above-said Miss Almas and statements recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. The main contention of the petitioner is that on the basis of these affidavits and statements, the witnesses have resiled from their previous statements and, therefore, no case is made out against the present petitioner and that the further proceedings are taken only to cause harassm ent to the petitioner which is not required by law.
3. ' The notice was issued to the Deputy Attorney-General and counter-affidavit has been filed by Khan Muhammad Inspector F.I.A. On behalf of respondent 1. In his affidavit he has specifically stated that no fresh investigation is beig held, but it is the continuation of the same investigation and that on verification it was revealed that by way of compromise the bribe money of Rs,1,72,000 was returned to the complainant by the petitioner and respondent 2 and that the investigation has now been completed' and the petitioner and respondent 2 will be sent up for trial after completion of certain formalities like obtaining the sanction etc. We had asked the learned counsel for the petitioner whether any mala fides are alleged against the investigating agency, which he could not substantiate. The learned counsel relied on the case of Shahnaz Begum v. The Honourable Judges of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan and another reported in PLD 1971 SC 677. With due respect this case would not help the petitioner. On the contrary, in this case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held at page 687. `The High Court has also no power of supervision or control over investigating agencies for the power of superintendence which is given by Article 102 of the Constitution is only in respect of all other Courts that are subordinate to it. This position, as already pointed out, is not also disputed by the learned Advocate-General for the Province of Sind'.
4. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner has laid emphasis on the affidavits and the statements recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. By the said Miss Almas Shahabuddin and others and has contended that in view of this no case is made out against the petitioner and the present action is being taken against him only to cause harassment. Suffice it to say that it is well-settled that the constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to consider or appraise the evidence or material collected by the investigating agency.
5. ' Since, in counter-affidavit it has been asserted that the investigation is complete and the petitioner is to be sent up to stand trial, he will be at liberty to avail of the other remedies as provided in Criminal Procedure Code. However, we direct the investigating agency to complete the formalities and put up the challan within the period of four months from the date of service of a copy of this order on Investigating Officer.
6. ' In view of the above, we find no substance in this petition, which is dismissed in limine.
7. ' Above are the reasons for short order passed on 14th September, ]988, dismissing the petition in limine.