' The petitioner seeks quashment of F.I.R. No,3 of 1998 dated 11-2-1998 registered by Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Lahore for offences under sections 420/468/471 and 409, P.P.C. Read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on the grounds that it was lodged on the baseless and unfounded inquiry or raid conducted by the Raiding Team in the absence of the petitioner as well as XEN/S.D.O. And the allegations that stone metal was of less value is absolutely false and incorrect, for the treason that on 16-2-1998 Executive Engineer (Headquarter) submitted a report that he inspected the site on 14-2-1998 and 15-2-1998 and found the material at the site measuring 1,44,543 C. Feet, although the payment was made of total quantity of Sub Base and Base of Material, measuring 1,42,30 C. Feet and that there was no question of shortage of the material at the site and consequently the allegation that the petitioner/Contractor was not in a position to collect stone at the site from 21-1-1998 to 24-1-1998 was also baseless. This fact was also supported by the physical verification and that the allegation that the petitioner received Rs.25,00,000 is also baseless as the petitioner received the payment of material which was available at the site. It is also submitted that on the one hand the Department opted to refer the matter on the criminal side as a result of which the impugned F.I.R. Was registered although as per practice and rules titled as Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985 which were the statutory rules, first of all the Anti-Corruption Establishment must hold an independent inquiry, and therefore, if there was sufficient material available to connect any accused or Government servant, then the case could be registered but under the political pressure and with mala fide intention ignoring the law and the rules, the impugned F.I.R. Was registered.
2. The admitted position in this case is that the person making the first information report had disowned it as became evident from the proceedings taken in Writ Petition No,3356 of 1998 (Multan) which also was filed by the present petitioner. In that petition, Station House Officer, Police Station Abdul Hakim District Khanewal was directed by this Court to produce the complainant, named in the F.I.R. And he did appear in the Court at Multan Bench and the writ petition was disposed of with the observation that in view of the statement made by Bashir Ahmad, it is clear that F.I.R. No,3 of 1998 registered with Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Lahore is without any complainant and is bogus on the face of it and no useful purpose will be therefore, served by proceeding with the petitioner any further. It, therefore, follows that the F.I.R. Is without any basis and the whole superstructure raised on it is to fall on the ground on the factual side.
3. Secondly, before initiating the action on the criminal side, the Anti-Corruption Establishment was bound to hold a preliminary inquiry and thereafter a case could have been registered. This having not been done, there has been a clear violation of rules 5 to 8 of the Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985 which are reproduced for ready reference:- 5.(1). After the preliminary, if the ex officio Additional Director or ex-officio Deputy Director finds that:- (a). There is no ground to proceed further in the matter, the proceeding shall be dropped after recording reasons and the complainant, if any, shall be informed.
(b). There are reasonable grounds to proceed further in the matter, he shall refer the case alongwith the relevant record to the appointing authority of the accused public servant for departmental proceedings under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules.
(2). If the ex-officio Additional Director or ex-officio Deputy Director receives a complaint or gets information through reliable source regarding a serious case which does not fall within the category of the notification issued under rule 4, he shall refer the same to the Director.
(3). If a case is referred under sub-rule (2) the Director after examining the same may return the same to the concerned ex-officio Additional Director, ex-officio Deputy Director who shall deal with the same under these rules.
6. Preliminary enquiries and investigations against public servants.-- Preliminary enquiries and investigations shall be initiated by the Establishment against public servants on complaints received from the Government, Heads of Departments or other reliable sources.
7. Initiation of preliminary enquiries against public servants.---ADeputy Director or an officer of or above his rank shall initiate preliminary enquiries in order to ascertain the identity of the complainant or inform and genuineness of the complainant/information: ' Provided that enquiry against the Commissioners of Divisions, Secretaries to the Provincial Government, Heads of Attached Departments and other officers of B.P.S-20 and above, shall be initiated by the Director with the prior permission of the Governor: ' Provided further that for those officers mentioned in the first proviso who are in B.P.S-19 such permission shall be accorded by the Chief Secretary.
8. Registration of cases.---(1) Criminal cases shall be registered by the Establishment under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and under such sections of the Pakistan, Penal Code, as have been set forth in the schedule to the Ordinance.
(2). Criminal cases shall be registered against accused public servants under the written orders of officer of Establishment mentioned below:--
(a) Public Servants B.P.S. 1-16inNot Below a Deputy Director
(b) Public Servants B.P.S-17 and 18inNot below an Additional Director.
(c) Public Servants and above.inDirector, ' Provided that no case shall, however, be registered by the Director against public servants of the status of Commissioner, Secretary to Provincial Government, Heads of Attached Departments and, other officers of B.P.S-20 and above without the prior permission of the Governor: ' Provided further that for those public servants mentioned in the first proviso who are in B.P.S. 19, such permission shall be accorded by the Chief Secretary: ' Provided further that no prior permission shall be required for registration of a case against a public servant caught as a result or trap arranged by the Establishment under the supervision of a Magistrate, in the act of committing an offence specified in the schedule to the Ordinance. In such a case a report shall immediately be made to the Chief Secretary, the Administrative Secretary and immediate superior of the public servant concerned if he is in B.P.S-16 and above and to the appointing authority and immediate superior if the public servant is in B.P.S-15 and below.
(3) If the competent Authority under sub-rule (2) decides not to register a case he shall record reasons therefor."
4. According to the above rules the first step was the receipt of information, that is, the complaint and the second was that of holding a preliminary inquiry by the competent officer of the Anti- Corruption Establishment by joining the person against whom the information has been received so that identity of the complainant and the genuineness of the complaint is ascertained and thirdly, if it is so ascertained then to register the case and proceed further in accordance with law.
In the present case, the Anti-Corruption Establishment has not proceeded in the manner which was mandatory. The registation of the impugned F.I.R. In the circumstances is based on mala fide.
It is a case in which the petitioner has not only alleged mala fide on the part of the Establishment but also successfully established it and the presumption of regularity with regard to official acts stood rebutted. Secondly, the allegation of mala fide was not vague but clear and particular and the ground of mala fide alleged, has been proved.
' In these circumstances, the F.I.R. Impugned merits to be quashed and is hereby quashed.
F.I.R. Quashed.