1. ' ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, J.--By the present petition the following relief is sought for by the petitioner:-- "(i) that the impugned notices, "F', "G" and "H", dated 9-6-1988, 9-2-1989 are illegal, ultra vires and without lawful authority, and as such the same are of no legal effect/s whatsoever, and.
(ii) restrain the Respondents, particularly 2 and 3 from issuing such illegal notices to cause harassm ent to the petitioners and/or interfere in the performance of their duty as admissible and/or warranted under the law, and (iii) costs of the petition."
2. ' Admittedly the above notices are issued by the Additional Circle Officer, Anti-corruption Establishment, Sukkur requiring the petitioner to attend his office for recording of his statement in regard to the Complaint No, 90/88 against the officials of the petitioner Society. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said notices have been issued without any lawful authority. His contention is that it is only the "Registrar" who can hold any enquiry in the affairs of the Society and that also on the requisition of Society or on an application of the majority of the committee of the Society or 1/3rd of the members- of the Society. He has placed reliance on section 43 of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925 which reads as under:-- "43. Inquiry by Registrar.--(1) The Registrar may of his own motion by himself or by a person duly authorized by him in writing in this behalf hold an inquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of a society.
(2) The Registrar shall hold such an inquiry as is contemplated in subsection (1) of this section--
(a) on the requisition of society, duly authorized by rules made in this behalf to make such requisition in respect of one of its members, such members being itself a society.
(b) on the applicatibn of a majority of the Committee of the Society,
(c) on the application of 1/3rd of the members of the Society.
3. ' The learned counsel for petitioner has further referred to the provisions of section 63(3) of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925 which provides that "no prosecution under this Act shall be lodged without the previous sanction of the Registrar, which shall not be given except after serving a notice on the party concerned and giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard". From this the learned counsel has submitted that in the present case no sanction has been accorded by the Registrar for institution of the prosecution against the Petitioner Society. He has placed reliance on the case of Muhammad Aijaz Ahmad v. The State 1987 P Cr.L J 1320.
4. ' Mr. Muhammad Siddiq 'Choral, the learned Additional A.-G. Who is present on Court notice has submitted that the Anti-corruption authorities have started the investigation on the basis of an application received from Haji Abdullah and others. He has further submitted that the Anti- corruption Department is competent to investigate into the matters of corruption and misappropriation by the public servants. He has further submitted that the officers of the Cooperative Societies are deemed to be public servants by virtue of section 65-B of the Cooperative Secieties Act 1925 which reads as under:-- "Every officer of a society, including a Co-operative Bank, shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of section 21 of the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860)."
5. ' We have given anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel. It is obvious from the plain reading of section 65-B of the Coop: Societies Act that the officers of the Society are public servants and therefore any act of corruption or misappropriation by them would fall within the ambit of section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act II of 1947). The bar contained in subsection (3) of section 63 of the Cooperative Societies Act has no A bearing on the present case as it shows that words "prosecution under this Act" are the pertinent words. This section has to be read with section 60 of the same Act which in clauses (a) to (d) defines the offences "under the Act". These definitions do not include the offence of corruption and misappropriation. The case of Muhammad Aijaz Ahmed v. The State has no bearing on the present case as in the said case the above aspect was not dilated upon. As against this, we are fortified in our view by a recent D.B.
6. Decision of Karachi Bench given on 9-8-1989 in the case of Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society Limited Sukkur v. The Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Sukkur and another (C.P. No, 1696/87) wherein it has been held:-- "The above Section 63 is provided in Chapter 9 of the Act, which has the caption "Offences".
7. Sections 60, 61 and 62 provide the offences under the Act. If we were to read section 63 with the above sections preceding and if we take into consideration the, words "No prosecution under this Act" used in subsection (3) and also the expression in subsection 1 "Any offences under this Act", it becomes evident that the sanction is required only in respect of those offences before lodging the prosecution, which are provided for in the Act. The above two judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners has not dilated upon this aspect. There is no discussion as to the effect of the above section 60 to section 62 and the words "Under this Act" used in subsection (1) and subsection (3) of section 63."
8. From the above discussion we find no merit in the present petition which is dismissed in limine.
9. ' Above are the reasons for the short order announced by us in Court today.