' Brief facts culminating into filing of this petition are that on 29-12-1998 Iftikhar Hussain Baloch, petitioner was tried to be trapped through an unsuccessful raid. The petitioner informed the City Magistrate and also summoned the S.H.O. And they were requested to proceed in accordance with law against Atta-ur-Rehman who got the raid conducted. Subsequently, an application was moved by the petitioner whereupon, case against Ijaz Hussain, Muhammad Imran Hussain, Tahir Masood, Atta-urRehman and Irshad Hussain Bhidwal, was registered under sections 165-A, 186, 506, 109, 182/211, P.P.C. On completion of the investigation the challan was submitted in Court. It is argued that the District Magistrate merely to oblige Atta-ur-Rehman accused who in fact was the main architect of arranging the raid to trap Iftikhar Hussain petitioner, directed the District Attorney to withdraw the case against Atta-ur-Rehman etc. It has been challenged through the instant writ petition that the letter moved by the District Magistrate, dated 21-4-1999 directing the withdrawal of the case be declared as illegal and without lawful authority.
2. Pursuant to the letter of the District Magistrate the District Attorney, Bhakkar instructed Rab Nawaz, Inspector (Legal), Bhakkar to withdraw the case as envisaged under section 494, Cr.P.C. The Inspector, Legal who was conducting the prosecution stated before Mr. Muhammad Akram Khan, learned Senior Civil Judge/Magistrate Section 30, Bhakkar that he intended to withdraw the case under the directions of the District Magistrate. The learned Senior Civil Judge/Magistrate on the basis of his statement discharged the accused under section 494, Cr.P.C. On the same day i.e, 26- 1-2000
3. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under section 494, Cr.P.C. It is only the Public Prosecutor who with the consent of the Court before pronouncement of the judgment, can withdraw from the prosecution but in the present case the Inspector Legal was not authorized or competent to do the same. Section 494, Cr.P.C. Is reproduced as under:-- ' "Any Public Prosecutor may with the consent of the Court, before the judgment is pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution of any person either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences for which he is tried and upon such withdrawal,--
(a) if it is made before a charge has been framed, the accused shall be discharged in respect of such offence or offences;
(b) if it is made after a charge has been framed, or when under this Code no charge is required, he shall be acquitted (in respect of such offence or offences)."
' According to the learned counsel Inspector Legal is not Public Prosecutor within the meaning of section 494, Cr.P.C. Therefore, he was not authorized to withdraw from the prosecution. In support of his contention the learned counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments:--
(i) Mir Hassan v. Tariq Saeed and others PLD 1977 SC 451,
(ii) Ramzan Ali v. D.M. Sargodha and others PLD 1983 Lah. 610, and
(iii) Zahid Hussain v. The Crown PLD 1954 Lah.
710.
' It has been laid down in those cases that withdrawal of the cases can be sought only by the Public Prosecutor.
4. In response to the same the learned counsel for the respondents has referred to Chapter 27, Rule 4 of the Police Rules, 1934, Volume third. According to sub-rule (2) the Prosecuting Inspectors and Prosecuting Sub-Inspectors have been appointed as Public Prosecutors in the local areas specified their under. Sub-rule (2) is reproduced as under:-- Officers Every Prosecuting Inspector of police.
Every prosecuting Sub-Inspector of Police stationed at the headquarters of sub-District.
Every Prosecuting Sub-Inspector of Police stationed at the headquarters of the sub-Division.Local areas The District in which the Prosecuting Inspector is stationed.
The District at the headquarters of which the prosecuting Sub-- Inspector is stationed.
The sub-Division at the headquarters of which the Prosecuting Sub-Inspector is stationed. "
5. Bare perusal of these rules indicates that Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors of police when they are appointed as Public Prosecutors, they will be deemed to be Public Prosecutors within the meaning of section 492, Cr.P.C. The rule is absolutely unambiguous and there remains no doubt that any Inspector or Sub-Inspector when he has been authorized to act as prosecuting Inspector, he will be deemed to be a Public Prosecutor for the purposes of section 492, Cr.P.C. Therefore, the plea raised by the learned counsel that Inspector Legal is not a Public Prosecutor within meaning of section 492, Cr.P.C. Or 494, Cr.P.C. Is without merit. The learned counsel for the respondent in support of his contentions has also cited the following judgments:-
(i) Muhammad Hanif and 4 others v. D.M., Bahawalpur PLD 1971 Lah. 574,
(ii) Saad Shibli v. The State and another PLD 1981 SC 617 and
(iii) Maqbool Ahmad Shaikh v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 1442.
6. In view of the clear and unambiguous law on the subject there remains no doubt or ambiguity with regard to the competence or authority of the Prosecuting Inspector to withdraw from the prosecution which stand withdrawn of course with the consent of the Court. This petition, therefore, is dismissed.