' SH. IJAZ NISAR, J.---Leave is sought against the judgment, dated 2-1-1997, passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby it dismissed the revision petition filed by Sharafud Din petitioner
2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner, who was Deputy Superintendent of Police in Anti- Narcotics Task Force, raided a godown at Wazirabad and recovered 6.581 k.g. Of Charas. He lodged an FIR at Police Station P.N.C.B. Model Town., Lahore, under Section 9/14, Control of Narcotics, Substances Ordinance, 1995 read with Article 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979.
The petitioner remained associated with the investigation. The allegations against him are that on 6-4-1995 he offered illegal gratification to the Deputy Director, Anti-Narcotics Task Force, to help the accused persons, which was reported to the Magistrate. Consequently, a raiding party was arranged and outside a hotel in Liberty Market, Lahore, about Rupees One Crore in the form of foreign currency were recovered from the diggi of the petitioner's car. The investigation against the petitioner was carried out for offering bribe to the Member of Pakistan Narcotics Force. A separate challan on account of the said investigation was submitted to the Court of learned Special Judge (Central) for trial under sections 161,162,165 and section 5(2) of P.C.A. 1947, against the petitioner.
' The petitioner moved an application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Objecting to the jurisdiction of the Court, inter alia, on the ground that the cognizance for trial under the aforementioned sections could not be taken. The learned Special Judge vide order dated 12-11-1996 rejected the said application.
3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition in the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed on 2-1-1997. Hence, this petition.
4. It is contended that offence against the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of the Control of Narcotics Substances Ordinance, or the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, and as such could not be tried jointly with the accused from whom Charas had been recovered. It is added that the investigation and submission of challan by Anti-Narcotics Task Force against the petitioner under sections 161, 162 & 165-A, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2), P.C.A. And the cognizance of the said offences against the petitioner by the learned Special Judge (Central) were without jurisdiction and coram non judice.
5. The learned High Court dismissed the plea of the petitioner on the ground that he could be charged and tried under sections 161, 162, 165-A P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the PCA Act, 1947, because it had been committed in the course of the same transaction in which the main offence had been committed, and in pursuance of section 12 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Ordinance, 1995, he was also liable to be tried alongwith the co-accused, for, there is an allegation that the money was acquired by him through acts which had been declared as an offence under the said Act.
6. Leave is granted to consider whether the petitioner could be tried jointly with his co-accused, from whom Charas was allegedly recovered, for an offence of offering bribe on a different date, and whether the offence of offering bribe could be said to have been committed in the course of the same transaction in which the recovery of Charas had been made. The trial to the extent of the petitioner in the Court of Special Judge (Central)/Sessions Judge, Lahore, shall remain stayed till the disposal of the appeal.