' Through this application the petitioner questions the registration of a complaint, under section 182, P.P.C. Dated 5-2-1989, as Case No, 18/89, before the Assistant Commissioner and S.D.M., Preedy, Karachi. Such complaint, lodged by Ghulam Mustafa Khan, Inspector, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Karachi, proceeds on the ground that, on 5-4-1986, the petitioner herein filed a complaint with the Director, A.C.E. Karachi, against Mr. Iqbal Ahmed Zubedi, A.C. And S.D.M. City, Karachi, alleging unlawful practices and misuse of powers by the latter. On 6-5-1986, the complaint under section 182, P.P.C. Records that the petitioner filed a written statement to the foregoing effect, which written statement was followed by several applications with the same reference. The matter was placed before A.C.C.I,, which on 29-12-1987 (perhaps the date is 29-2-1987), decided to conduct an open enquiry in the matter. On 9-3-1987, the petitioner is said to have appeared before the Inspector, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Karachi, gave a statement and promised to provide details about the four flats and a house, alleged to be owned by the A.C. And S.D.M. Iqbal Ahmed Zubedi. These latter details, he failed to provide, as a result whereof, the allegations remaining unsubstantiated, the enquiry was disposed of and the matter was again placed before A.C.C.I, which decided to file a complaint against the present petitioner, in its meeting held on 11-1-1989. As such, the abovesaid complaint under section 182, P.P.C. Was filed on 5-2-1989 and registered by S.D.M., Preedy, Karachi, on 22-2-1989.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that he was declared successful, on merits, in the P.C.S. Examination held by the Sind Public Service Commission in 1977, that he was duly recommended by such Commission to the Provincial Government, that the said Examination was subsequently scrapped but that his case is, currently, under active consideration. During the intervening period, the petitioner came in contact with some officers, including S.D.M., Iqbal Zubedi, who, on posing as petitioner's friend, took huge amounts, on different pretexts, from him but was later exposed and found to be involved in various illegal practices and living beyond means and possessed of disproportionate assets. The petitioner had actually complained, against S.D.M. Iqbal Ahmed Zubedi to the Chief Secretary, Government of Sind, vide his application dated 26-3-1986, copy whereof has been filed in which various allegations were made, including extraction of money from the petitioner. Such application, it is said, was forwarded to the Secretary Services and General Administration from where it was dispatched to the Chairman, Anti-Corruption, who, in turn, sent it to the Director, Anti-Corruption. No complaint to the Director, Anti-Corruption, as such, allegedly, was made by the petitioner. No case/F.I.R. Under section 154, Cr.P.C. Against A.C. And S.D.M. Iqbal Ahmed Zubadi was registered by the Anti-Corruption Police and no enquiry/investigation under section 156, Cr.P.C. Was made and, instead, it was the petitioner who found himself prosecuted under section 182, P.P.C. On a false, frivolous and vexatious complaint, which was registered and pending before the S.D.M., Preedy, in which Court the petitioner is on bail, pursuant to order, dated 12-3-1989.
3. On the question that the complaint under reference, from which these quashment proceedings arise, was incompetent and without jurisdiction, learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on Mansab Ali v. Ameer and three others PLD 1971 SC 124, Taj Muhammad v. The State 1980 P Cr. L J 1003, Ali Ahmed v. The State 1984 P Cr. L J 772 and Abdul Shakoor v. The State 1988 P Cr. L J 1822. On the foregoing averments and citations, Mr. Imdad Hussain Kazi conceded to the grant of this application. The application was, therefore, granted through a short order passed in the Court today, but for reasons to be recorded separately. The following are such reasons:
4. While the petitioner has brought on record his referred complaint to the Chief Secretary, Government of Sind, which, to say the least, contains serious allegations, the State has been unable to controve t that there was any other complaint such as dated 5-4-1986, to the Director, Anti- Corruption by production of due copy, or even otherwise. Notwithstanding this, assuming that there was another complaint the pleas and contentions of the petitioner still remain uneffected. In the first place, it is not shown that any complaint was registered from the side of the petitioner under section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code or any investigation under section 156, Cr.P.C. Pursuant thereto, was or could be held to give rise to any action under section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code for, in order that action on the basis of a false complaint, involving a cognizable offence, is initiated it is essential that the same should be properly registered, investigated and found to be false or baseless. Alternatively, if the matter were to be treated of a non-cognizable nature, the requirements of section 155, Cr.P.C., never came into play.
5. Besides, placing the case of the State at a very high level of acting on a mere 'information' under section 182, P.P.C. And that of the petitioner, correspondingly, at a much lower one namely, knowledge or belief regarding such `information' being 'false', the investigation as was conducted by Ghulam Mustafa Khan, Inspector Anti-Corruption, still, does not seem to have satisfied the requirements of law to justify a prosecution under section 182, P.P.C. The position, as reflected in the complaint under section 182, P.P.C. (though denied by the petitioner) is that the present petitioner appeared before the said Inspector, Anti-Corruption, and recorded a statement before him but failed to provide the details of the properties alleged to be owned by S.D.M. Iqbal Zubadi. Patently, the issue could not have been closed at that stage and due statement of A.C. And S.D.M. Iqbal Ahmed Zubadi should have been recorded to confirm the truth or otherwise in the allegations of the petitioner. This, as per the said complaint does not seem to have been done bringing forth a situation whereunder no case under section 182, P.P.C. Could have been or was made out.
6. At any event, if even the complaint of the petitioner was not addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Sind, but was addressed to the Director, A.C.E., Karachi, proceedings under section 182, P.P.C. Could only be lodged, under section 195(1)(a), Cr.P.C. By such Director or by a 'public servant to whom he was subordinate', as has been reaffirmed in the cases of Taj Muhammad, Ali Ahmed and Abdul Shakoor ibid.
7. It is, however, mentioned in the referred complaint under section 182, P.P.C., that the decision to lodge a complaint was taken in a meeting, dated 11-11989 of A.C.C.I., For one thing, it is not a complaint by the A.C.C.I., but by the Inspector Anti-Corruption Establishment and, for another, how such an authority could be considered to be one to which the Director, A.C.E., Karachi, was subordinate is not at all clear. Even otherwise and even if there was any such subordination of the nature contemplated by section 195(1)(a), Cr.P.C. A.C.C.I., is a body of persons and not 'a public servant' as envisaged in that section and did not qualify to either direct or lodge a complaint under section 182, P.P.C. These provisions, involving visitation of criminal liability have to be strictly construed and a clear premise of jurisdictional facts must be established to sustain the prosecution.
8. In Mansab Ali's case, above referred, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed that if a mandatory condition for the exercising of jurisdiction by a Court, Tribunal or Authority is not fulfilled the entire proceedings which follow are rendered illegal and suffer from want of jurisdiction. That principle squarely applies to this case.
9. The object behind section 182, P.P.C., is to discourage false and frivolous informations. On no hypothesis or reasoning can members of the public be permitted to be scared away by an erroneous and misplaced interpretation of that provision. Any other approach to the matter would result in the negation of Rule of Law.
10. In the above background, I am satisfied that the requirements of section 182, Cr.P.C. Were not, in any manner, satisfied before the complaint under section 182, P.P.C. Was lodged and registered. It was submitted by a person who was a subordinate and not a superior of the one, who had been moved by the petitioner for action. What is more, the complaint of the petitioner does not seem to have been lawfully and properly disposed of.
11. As a result, the proceedings in Case No, 18/89; State v. Nasim Akhtar Soofi, pending before the Assistant Commissioner and S.D.M. Preedy, Karachi, are quashed. The relevant authorities to whom the petitioner had moved for On 27-9-1988, the respondent who had arrived from Dubai was apprehended at Karachi Airport and from his possession gold slabs weighing 100 redress against A.C. And S.D.M. Iqbal Ahmed Zubadi, shall take necessary steps to dispose of the petitioner's grievance, in accordance with law and it is then alone, if at all, that a further question would arise of any action against the present petitioner under section 182, P.P.C.