' The petitioners have prayed in this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 read with section 561, Cr.P.C. That case F.I.R. No,376 of 1997 registered at Police Station Civil Lines Lahore against them on 30-10-1997 under sections 379 and 409, P.P.C. Be quashed.
2. The facts leading to the registration of this case, as they can be gathered from the writ petition and the comments filed by the S.H.O. Police Station Civil Lines Lahore/respondent No,2, briefly stated, are that Muhammad Hafeez Petitioner No,1 being a contractor entered into an agreement with the Agriculture Department regarding the auction of fuel wood, being the highest bidder and in pursuance thereof, he deposited the balance amount of the auction price to the tune of Rs,26,025 through receipt No,73 dated 22-10-1997 (copy Annexure A). According to the terms and conditions of the agreement, the contractor was given a target date for lifting of fuel wood from Bagh-e-Jinnah upto 30-10-1997 (as per the petitioners). When this process was under way, the complainant Mian Mahmood Director Floriculture, Agriculture Department, visited the site on 30-10- 1997 alongwith the Deputy Director Ch. Muhammad Munawar Hussain and found that the men of the contractor were about to carry away certain cut tress, which had not been put to auction, on a tractor trolley. They were stopped by Mian Mahmood and his companion and the gates of the garden were directed to be closed. It was in these circumstances that the matter was reported to the police who vide rapat No,35 registered F.I.R. No,376 of 1997 at 7-50 p.m on 30-10-1997.
3. It has been claimed in this writ petition that the complainant demanded illegal gratification from the contractor which he failed to pay and this annoyed the Director who was promoted to lodge this F.I.R.
4. On the other hand, the S.H.O. Has submitted that petitioner No,1 could not lift the fuel wood within the time limit and was damaging the Government Property by cutting trees which were not included in the auction and during surprise raid conducted by the Director Floriculture, it was found that petitioner No,1 was with the connivance of petitioners Nos.2 and 3, loading the fuel wood in the trolleys.
5. The petitioners have prayed for the quashment of these proceedings alleging inter alia (i) that the F.I.R. Could not be lodged against the Government officials with the ordinary police particularly so when no inquiry had been conducted nor the permission sought from the competent authority;
(ii) that petitioner No,1 being licensee entered into the premises in this capacity and the provisions of sections 379 and 409, P.P.C. Were not attracted; and (iii) that no registration number of the tractor had been mentioned in the F.I.R. And it was not possible for the accused to remove the tractor trolley out of the garden when the complainant had directed that the doors/gates of the garden be closed. It would not be out of place to mention here that according to the report of the S.H.O. Even, nor recovery of the wood could be effected but as per his submission, it was due to the reasons that the petitioners did not join the investigation.
6. Another application (C.M. 1-98) under section 151, P.P.C. Was also made on behalf of Saleem Akhtar Superintendent and Sohail Iqbal, Sub-Engineer, Bagh-e-Jinnah, petitioners Nos.2 and 3, on 13-2-1998. On 20-2-1998, both the parties addressed preliminary arguments. Relying on Mahboob Ali v. State and 3 others (PLD 1996 Lah. 454) and Muhammad Sharif v. S.H.O. Police Station City Hafizabad and another (PLD 1997 Lahore 692), the learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the local police had no jurisdiction to register and investigate a case against the public servants because inquiry and investigation had to resolve around the fountain of Anti-Corruption Establishment in matters of allegations of corruption against public servants. In view of what has been laid down in these authorities, this writ petition was admitted to regular hearing.
7. I have today heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Law Officer at a bit length and have also carefully considered the law on the point. In Muhammad Afzal and 2 others v.
Muhammad Siddique Girwa, Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala (1992 MLD 311) (Lahore), the case had been registered at the instance of the learned Additional Sessions Judge under section 409/420/466/468/218/471/104/167, P.P.C. Read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The proceedings were quashed on the ground that the direction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge for registration of a case against the accused and consequent registration of the said case, were illegal because the police was not authorised under the law to register and investigate the same in respect of the scheduled offences. Similarly in Riaz Ahmad Tahir v. The State and others (PU 1996 (Criminal Cases) Lahore 80 (Multan Bench), F.I.R. Lodged with the local police under section 409/467/468, P.P.C. Against Patwari was quashed on the ground that the case could only be registered with the Anti-Corruption Establishment. Again in Salim Hussain v. The State (PU 1996 (Criminal Cases) Lahore 916) (Bahawalpur Bench) it was held that the Anti-Corruption cases could only be registered with the Anticorruption Establishment and not with the local police.
Similar view was taken in Mahbood Ali v. The State (PLD 1996 Lah. 454) in case registered under section 420/467/468/471/161, P.P.C. And section 5 of Prevention of Corruption Ac 1947 by local police, after holding that under rules, 3, 6 and 8 of the Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985 criminal case could have been registered only by the Anti-Corruption Establishment and local police had no jurisdiction to register and investigate the case against a public servant. The registration of the F.I.R. Was, thus, declared illegal and was quashed. In another detailed judgment Muhammad Sharif v. S.H.O. Police Station City Hafizabad and another (PLD 1997 Lahore 692), all the relevant law was taken into consideration and it was finally concluded that the F.I.Rs, in the case could be registered against the public servants by the Establishment under the written orders of the officers mentioned in rule 8 of the Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules 1985 and that too at the Anti-corruption Establishment and I I\ not by the police officers at the local police station. It is, thus, established that where public servants are alleged to have committed a scheduled offence jointly with any other person, case against them could only be registered under the orders of the officers mentioned in rule 8 (ibid) who in the present case was Deputy Director Anti-Corruption Establishment.
8. In fact, Mr. Abdul Karim Bhutta Law Officer has no cavil with these assertions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the case-law relied upon by him but relying on State v. Muhammad Shafi (PLD 1964 (W.P.) Lahore 1) and Javiad Hussain v. The State and another (PLD 1962 (W.P.)
Karachi 681) has requested that the State be allowed to approach the appropriate Quarters for proceedings against the accused in accordance with law. Both these authorities referred to by the learned Law Officer have no bearing on the facts of the case and are in respect of re-trial.
9. For all these reasons, I accept this writ petition. The registration of the F.I.R. In question is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and consequently it is quashed. The concerned authorities would, however, be at liberty to proceed against the accused in accordance with law.
No order as to costs.
F.I.R. Quashed.