' Through this petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of proceedings of case titled "The State v.
Muhammad lqbal Khan" registered vide F.I.R. No,305 of 1986, dated 4-9-1986 under sections 420/468/471/409, P.P.C. At Police Station Sadar, Jhang pending before Special Judge A nti- Corruption , Sargodha, Camp at Faisalabad.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was posted as Secretary, Town Committee Bagh, Tehsil and District Jhang. According to the petitioner, with mala fide F.I.R. No, 305 was recorded at Police Station Sadar, Jhang on 4-9-1986 against the petitioner under sections 409, 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. The allegations levelled in the F.I.R. Are that the petitioner withdrew Rs,5,000 from the bank on 5-5-1986 through Muhammad Ishaq, a peon of the office and has misappropriated the amount.
After the completion of investigation a challan has been submitted in the Court, of the respondent No,1 which is pending adjudication. Hence this petition has been filed against the pendency of the same.
3. The learned counsel , for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been charged with offences which are scheduled offences and only the Anti-Corruption Department under the Anti- Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985 was competent to initiate proceedings, which had firstly to hold the inquiry and then if the facts were found correct to register the case and after registration of the case and collecting of the evidence, a challan was to be put in the Court of respondent No,1.
It is contended that local police could not register the case and could not investigate the same, hence submission of challan by the local police is illegal and being submitted by incompetent police officials, thus the said F.I.R. Was lodged without lawful authority. Further contends that the pendency of the trial before the respondent No,1 is liable to be quashed as the same has been filed by local police and not by Anti-Corruption Department. He relied upon Saleem Hussain v. State PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lahore) 916), Bashir Ahmad v. The State (1992 PCr.Ii 795) and prayed for quashment of that F.I.R. And proceedings before the trial Court by declaring all the proceedings from the registration of the F.I.R. As illegal and unlawful.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and also perused the record.
5. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the local police could not investigate the case cannot be considered at this stage. The challan has already been submitted before the Court and is rightly pending on the specific allegations against the petitioner as the petitioner being a civil servant is alleged to have misappropriated certain amount from the Government Treasury and he was prima facie found guilty of the offence mentioned. Though the challan was not prepared by the Anti-Corruption Department as the case falls under the scheduled offences and the Anti-Corruption Department has been established and special rules have been framed there under, but this question was not raised by the petitioner during the pendency of the investigation. Now this plea has been raised with mala fide at this belated stage just to flout the proceedings on the technicalities in order to avoid decision of the case on merits.
The provisions for the conducting of investigations by the Anti-Corruption Department are not mandatory, but are directory. If the case was registered by the local police and after investigation of the same, the challan has been submitted before the Court of competent jurisdiction, it is the trial Court only which has to take cognizance and weigh the evidence produced before it but registration of the criminal case cannot be held to be mala fide against a civil servant merely on the ground that investigation was conducted by the local police. The jurisdiction of the local police to take action against persons who have committed offences, is not bar under the laws. The proceedings cannot be quashed on the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner as this Court has held in a number of cases that it is the trial Court only which has to see the evidence and adjudicate the matter finally. In a case reported in Mirza Muhammad Iqbal and others v.
Government of Punjab (PLD 1999 Lahore 109), the proceedings pending before Special Judge Anti- Corruption on the basis of the investigation conducted by local police, were not quashed. Similarly in a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Rafique Ahmed v. The State (2000 PCr.LJ 994) the proceedings were also not quashed. Hence the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not found sufficient to quash the proceedings pending before respondent No,1 .
This petition has no merits, and is dismissed.
6. Learned trial Court is directed to start the trial from the stage it was stayed and conclude the trial within shortest possible time.