1. Petitioner through this Constitutional petition has sought quashment of F.I.R. No.18/86 (3918/86) registered at Anti-Corruption Establishment, Lahore under section 420/468/471/218/109, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 after the permission for the same was accorded by the Additional Director Anti-Corruption.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith other persons succeeded in preparing fake and forged Mukhbari application and on the basis of the same secured bogus allotments at different places under different names. This application was initially given on 8-5-1981 to Federal Investigating Agency which according to the averments made' in this writ petition investigated the same and transferred it to the Anti-Corruption Directorate.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought quashment on the ground that section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 places an embargo, as such no case can be registered in the facts of this case. Another argument has been advanced that the allotments secured on the basis of Mukhbari application were challenged through various writ petitions which were either dismissed as withdrawn or dismissed on merits, as such the same could not be reopened. A further argument has been advanced that the petitioner being not a public servant, the case cannot be registered and investigated under the Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance, 1961 (Ordinance XX of 1961).
4. The learned Addl. A.-G. As well as learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 have opposed the quashment of F.I.R.. It has also been pointed out that the Handwriting Expert has given the findings that the documents subject-matter of the F.I.R. Have been mutilated and interpolated and the parties' names have been inserted subsequently.
5. I have considered the contentions. Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act provides as under:-- "29. Cognizance of offences by Court.-- No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act save upon a complaint in writing made by an-officer appointed under this Act:'
6. Reading of this section makes it very clear that the embargo is only in respect of taking of cognizance and not qua the registration of the case. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Muhammad Hayat v. Chief Settlement Commissioner PLD 1970 Lah. 679. Even otherwise the reliance of the learned counsel would be not of much assistance as the Land Settlement Act has since been repealed.
7. The other argument of the learned counsel that the allotment orders have already attained finality is neither here not there. The allegation in the F.I.R. Is only qua the interpolation of record before the Settlement Authority which according to the learned Law Officer has been perpetrated with the collaboration and collusiveness of certain other employees. He has specifically named Muhammad Ali Reader of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and one Raja Safdar Hussain, Additional Settlement Commissioner in this regard. This aspect coming into light during the course of investigation nullifies the argument advanced by the learned counsel respecting the status of the petitioner. Since the alleged interpolation of the record has been perpetrated through the collusiveness of the departmental officials, as such the argument that the petitioner is not a public servant loses all its force. In this background in the exercise of my Constitutional jurisdiction, I am not inclined to thwart the investigation which has hardly taken off from the ground and the efforts have 8 finally been made seriously by the Investigating Agency to unearth the fraudulent transaction on the basis of which mass allotments of land were secured. Resultantly this writ petition is dismissed with the direction that the petitioner shall be given full opportunity to place his version on the record.
8. N.H.Q./A-185/L Writ refused.