' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.---Mian Hissamuddin son of Mian Miftahuddin Ex-Deputy General Manager/Acting General Manager Marketing Pakistan Steel Mills Karachi alongwith other accused was involved in a case under section 409/420/109, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 vide F.I.R. No, 2 of 1997 registered by F.I.A. State Bank Circle, Karachi dated 25-1-1997. As the aforesaid accused belonged to Thana Malakand Agency, there were certain accounts in the Allied Bank Limited Batkhela, Bank Square Branch Mingora and G.T.
Road Branch Peshawar, in his name or in the name of his family members, which were frozen under the orders of Muhammad Ayub Durrani Inspector F.I.A. State Bank Circle Karachi through a notice under section 5(5) of the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1975, issued on 3-4-1998. Muhammad Ehsan son of Mian Hissamuddin has challenged such action through the instant writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution.
2. Before that we enter into discussion on merits of the writ petition, we have come across an application (C.M. 1268/98) filed by one Mst. Shahnaz Begum wife of Jamaluddin Miftah who, through her counsel Miss Musarrat Hilali, wanted to be impleaded in the writ petition as a necessary party on the ground that her valuable rights are involved and that if she was not impleaded and allowed to defend her rights, "she will face a great hardship".
3. When asked as to what valuable right she had in the matter and as to what hardship she is likely to face if not impleaded, her learned counsel could not convince the Court with particular reference to the factum of impleadment. No such rights were even mentioned in detail in the Civil Miscellaneous that came before us. Anyhow, it transpired during discussion over such impleadment that Mst. Shahnaz Begum happened to be one of the Directors of the Firm incorporated in the name of the aforementioned Mian Hissamuddin and others. That through this petition she wanted to be impleaded and thereafter, take a plea that she was not at all the Director of the Firm and had nothing to do at all therewith and that the appearance of her name, as such, was a misrepresentation, fraud and forgery.
4. Having given our considered thought to the application, we have no two opinions in holding that the application for impleadment is misconceived. This writ petition pertains only to the impugned notice issued under section 5(5) of Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1975. If the writ petition is dismissed it would have least relevance to the application of Mst. Shahnaz Begum and if the writ petition is accepted it would still have least findings against Mst. Shahnaz Begum. If at all she has to challenge the factum of her directorship of the Firm, there are many other legal courses for her to adopt. In the present writ petition she would totally be a misfit and would least be given the relief, to which she has given no reference in the application either. With these remarks, the application for impleadment filed by Mst. Shahnaz Begum is rejected.
5. Coming to the merits of the writ petition, it happens to challenge the impugned notice on two- fold ground. First is to the effect that no action under section 5(5) of Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1975 could be taken with reference to F.I.R. No, 2, dated 25-1-1997 because the investigation therein had been completed long ago, that complete challan stood submitted before the trial Court, that the accused before the trial Court at Karachi stood charge-sheeted as well and that a few witnesses also stood examined. That in these circumstances, it could not be believed at all that the F.I.R. In question was still being placed under investigation and that the case was being investigated even after the commencement of trial.
6. We allowed time to the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shahzad Akbar Khan, learned Deputy Attorney-General on behalf of the State to furnish before us some documentary proof regarding the stage of either the investigation or the trial. Mr. Shahzad Akbar Khan placed before us a Fax message received from Karachi alongwith enclosures pertaining to the details of complete challan which indicated that the same stood submitted on 11-2-1997 and that the charge had been framed and further that the next date of hearing before the learned Special Judge (Central) II Anti- Corruption Karachi' is 15-8-1998. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted a copy of the charge sheet. It is, therefore, proved beyond doubt that the complete challan stands submitted in the case, that the trial Court has taken cognizance in the matter and that the charge has also been framed. This is a stage where the continuation of investigation is beyond comprehension. No investigation can now be continued on the basis of or in the name of F.I.R. No, 2 of 1997 dated 25-1- 1997 of Police Station F.I.A. S.B.C. Karachi. When no investigation can lawfully be conducted, the issuance of impugned notice under section 5(5) of Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1975 was coram non judice.
7. Though the matter of jurisdiction being a serious question of law, could have been taken up any time and at any stage even without having been alluded to in the writ petition yet the learned counsel for the petitioner took this plea specifically through C.M. No, 536 of 1998 that the Inspector F.I.A. Had no vested or territorial jurisdiction at all to take action in an area which was Provincially Administered Tribal Area of the North-West Frontier ' Province and to which the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1975 was never extended.
8. No time was 'wasted over arguments on this aspect of the writ petition because it is a known fact that the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1975, with reference to Article 247(3) of the Constitution, has not so far been extended to the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas of the North-West Frontier Province. The Federal Investigation Agency, therefore, has not vested as well as territorial jurisdiction to operate in Batkhela or Mingora.
9. Learned State counsel pointed out that one branch of the Allied Bank is located at Peshawar and hence the question of jurisdiction cannot be raised in connection therewith. We do agree that qua the question of territorial jurisdiction, the argument is not valid against the Banks that are situated in Peshawar but qua the first point with regard to the completion of investigation and the commencement of trial, the action is still not justified. This is besides the statement given at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in Banks at Peshwar there were foreign currency accounts covered by Act XXII of 1992 which, even otherwise could not be disturbed under section 5(5) of Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974.
10. Consequent upon what has been discussed above, we accept the writ petition and declare that the impugned notice under section 5(5) of Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1975 issued on 3-4- 1998 by Inspector F.I.A. State Bank Circle Karachi (Muhammad Ayub Durrani) is void, unlawful and without jurisdiction on the ground (1) that the FIA had no territorial jurisdiction in the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas of North-West Frontier Province and that(2) it could not be issued on the pretext of investigation in case F.I.R. No, 2 of 1997 dated 25-1-1997 of Police Station F.I.A. State Bank Circle, Karachi. This order, however, shall not affect the taking of any action under any lawful F.I.R.
Other than F.I.R. No, 2 of 1997 aforesaid and which does not involve the factum of territorial jurisdiction.