"Whether by virtue of section 485 of the Federal Investigation Agency, Act, 1974, has the F.I.A.
Exclusive jurisdiction to register any F.I.R. And to enquire into and investigate a case under sections 420, 468, 471 and 489-B, P.P.C. With respect to Prize Bonds issued by the Stag Bank of Pakistan, being a matter concerning Federal Government, the Punjab Provincial Police has no jurisdiction to register a case and to investigate into such offences?"
2. This question arises out of F.I.R. No.215/94, dated 14-7-1994 under section 420/468/471 and 489/B, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Old Anarkali, Lahore. The precise facts of the F.I.R. Are that the petitioners Nos. 3 and 4, as claimed, purchased Prize Bonds No. AD-046091 and J-046091 and contacted respondent No. 2 with the object to sell the said bonds to him but were found forged; hence the F.I.R.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides as well the learned counsel for the State at length.
3-A. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to section 3 of the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 and its Schedule. Section 3 reads as under:--- "Section 3. Constitution of the Agency.---(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Federal Government may constitute an agency to be called the Federal Investigation Agency for inquiry into, and investigation of, the offences specified in the Schedule, including an attempt or conspiracy to commit, and abetment of, any such offence.
(2) The agency shall consist of a Director-General to be appointed by the Federal Government and such number of other officers, as the Federal Government may, from time to time, appoint to be members of the Agency."
He vehemently contended that F.I.A. Act is a special law and section 3 thereof excludes other agencies and the offences mentioned in the Schedule are exclusively under the jurisdiction of F.I.A.
And none else has jurisdiction either to register F.I.R. Or to investigate into a case because special procedure has been prescribed as against the procedure laid down in Cr.P.C. Hence the offences mentioned in the Schedule of the F.IA. Act if allowed to be registered and enquired into other than by F.IA. Would amount to deprive a person from the facility provided in the procedure; according to which first preliminary enquiry is to be held if found guilty; after obtaining permission, then the case is to be registered. The learned counsel relied upon case Muhammad Sarwar v. The State (PLD 1968 SC 278) wherein it was held that the Pakistan Special Police Establishment Order VIII of 1948 and the West Pakistan Anti---Corruption of Establishment Order XX of 1961 set up special police force to deal with cases under sections 161, 162, 164 165 and 165-A, P.P.C. And cases of misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act 11 of 1947. Further relied upon case Javaid Iqbal and 2 others v. Federal Investigation Agency and 3 others (PLD 1986 Lah. 424) in which jurisdiction of F.IA. Was challenged but was held that the F.I.A. Had jurisdiction to enquire into and investigate said offences i.e. Sections 420, 468, 471 and 379, P.P.C. And 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947) because the accused were public servants. The learned counsel also relied upon case Mst. Noor Safia v. Deputy Director, F.IA. And others (1987 P Cr. L J 1202 Lahore) wherein writ petition was allowed on the ground that as the offence of embezzlement was committed by an employee of a Nationalised Bank being a cognizable and scheduled offence; the F.I.A. Was competent to register and to conduct investigation exclusively on the written complaint from a member of general public in the light of Federal Government's Letter No. 1/176-F.I.A. (i) dated June 1976.
5. On the basis of the abovementioned decisions, learned counsel stressed that cognizable and scheduled offences as mentioned in the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 are exclusively under the jurisdiction of said Agency. He also relied upon cases (PLD 1990 Quetta 1) and 1989 SCMR
199. The facts of the abovementioned cases are altogether different and are not identical and applicable to the present case in hand. The other cases earlier mentioned above relate to the employees of Federation and others. There is a little doubt or dispute that the F.I.A. Has exclusive jurisdiction to register a case and conduct investigation of cognizable and scheduled offences if committed by the employees of Federation and none else.
6. The question is that if a member of general public commits an offence mentioned in the Schedule of F.I.A. Act as well as Schedule of Cr.P.C. Whether the provincial police is debarred to take cognizance and register a case under Cr.P.C. Against him?
7. It is well-settled rule of interpretation that when a Special law has been made on a subject and there is also a general law susceptible of covering the same subject and the matter is covered by both the laws; the presumptionwould be that the general law is not intended to interfere with the operation of the special law; hence the case shall have to be dealt with under the special law.
Admittedly, the F.IA. Act is a special law; but relates to the employees of Federation and nowhere in the scheme has been mentioned that offences under sections 420, 468, 471 and 489-B, Cr.P.C.
Either have been deleted from the Schedule of Cr.P.C. Or the provincial police has been debarred to take cognizance, rather it necessitated the Federal Government due to special procedure laid down in F.IA. Act, 1974 to issue Letter No. 1/176-F.IA. (i) dated 28th June 1976 on the basis of which Mr. Justice Lehrasap Khan as he then was in Muhammad Sarwar's case (supra) referred above directed the F.IA. Authorities to register a case on application of a member of general public under section 154, Cr.P.C. And to investigate into same in accordance with law.
8. In case A.I Asghar v. The State and 3 others 1992 P Cr. L J 1913 in which counterfeit currency notes were found in possession of the accused persons. Similarly, in case Abdul Ghaffar Bhatti v. The State (1993 P Cr. L J 1128) wherein Mashirnamas of forged currency notes were allegedly recovered and cases under sections 489-B and 489, Cr.P.C. Were prosecuted. The abovementioned cases relating to the currency, subject-matter of Federal Government were dealt under General Law Le Criminal Procedure Code. In case State v. Zulfiqar A.I Malik (Shariat Court AJ&K) 1993 P Cr. L J 932 neither the case was registered nor the challan was submitted under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act; rather the challan was submitted under sections 419/420/467/468 and 471, P.P.C. Before the Magistrate Ist Class with powers under section 30; it was held that the Special Judge Anti---Corruption had no jurisdiction to try the case and the case was remanded to the said Magistrate as he had the jurisdiction because the challan was presented under APC; though more effective provisions were provided for the prevention of bribery and corruption of public servants and all the cases registered and investigated under the said Act were triable by Special Judge Anti-Corruption.
9. The outcome of the above citations is that in cases where the Special Law as well general law is applicable, if a member of general public commits an offence mentioned in the Schedule of both the laws would not affect either the competence or the jurisdiction of the provincial police under general law. The proposition that only a valid investigation is the foundation of validity of proceedings in Court and that the proceedings are to be quashed if investigation suffers from any such irregularity is not correct exposition of law as held in case Syed Jamal Shah v. State (1989P Cr.
L J 209 Peshawar).
10. It was held by their Lordships of Supreme Court of Pakistan in case Federation of Pakistan v.
Shah Muhammad Khan (PLD 1960 SC 85) that indeed the Central Government is empowered under the law, by general or special order to take away the jurisdiction and powers of investigation but no law or regulation gives complainant/petitioner a vested right, enforceable by writ to have his complaint investigated by particular breach of police.
11. I am of the view that the provincial police has the jurisdiction to take cognizance of offence mentioned in the schedule of F.I.A. Act as well as of Cr.P.C. Subject to that neither F.I.A. Intends nor has already taken the cognizance of the offence as the special law overrides the general law. The respondent No. 1 has registered the case on the complaint of respondent No. 2 and has no malice against the petitioners at all; as it is easy to allege malice against some one but difficult to prove it.
Under the circumstances, there is no substance in the case and the petition is devoid of merits therefore, the same is dismissed.