1. Mr. Moula Bux Khoso, Advocate for the applicant, submits that there is a fundamental legal flaw in the F.I.R. In question inasmuch as It has been lodged in violation of the Rules framed under section 9 of the Sindh Inquiries and Anti-Corruption Act, 1991 whereby any proceeding to be taken against a civil servant, where there are allegations of corruption, are to be initiated by the Anti-Corruption Department. He has drawn my attention in this respect to rule 11, sub-rules (3), (4) and (5).
2. Consequently learned counsel submits that lodging of the direct F.I.R. With Police Station Kot Ghulam Muhammad by the concerned Police Officer against the applicant which basically contains allegations of corruption and misconduct etc., when an Anti-Corruption Police Station is available at Mirpur Khas is not maintainable and requires to be quashed. He has prayed that this application may be converted to one under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. For the quashment of the F.I.R. In question being Crime No,129 of 2000 of Police Station Kot Ghulam Muhammad. In support of this contention he has relied upon Mahboob Ali v.State and 3 others (PLD 1996 Lab. 454), Riaz Ahmad Tahir v. State and others (PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lah) 80) and Muhammad Sharif v. S.H.O., Police Station City, Hafizabad (PLD 1997 Lah. 692). Learned counsel has further submitted that the very lodging of the case against the applicant smacks of mala fide since it has been initiated through the orders of the D.I.-G., Mirpur Khas alleging that the applicant had torn a page of the F.I.R. Book and pasted another page on it. Consequently per the learned counsel the D.I.-G. Should have filed a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Police Station which is available at Mirpur Khas. However, due to extraneous consideration this was not done.
3. Learned A.A.-G. Has conceded before me that in fact the F.I.R, was lodged in violation of the relevant provisions of law. However, he has submitted that were the 'applicant seeks the quashment of the F.I.R., he should move a proper application since the present application is one for bail' before arrest.
4. ' I have heard both the learned counsel as well as the learned A.A.-G. And gone through the F.I.R.
5. And case-law. It would be seen that as regards the charge of corruption is concerned, against a civil servant, section 3 of the Sindh Inquiry and Anti-Corruption Act, 1991 creates an Enquiries and Anti-Corruption Establishment for investigation of or enquiry into the offences set forth in the Schedule and cases relating to misconduct of public servants and for holding of a preliminary enquiry for determining whether such offences or cases shall be investigated or departmental enquiries into the conduct of the public servants concerned in such offences or cases shall be held.
6. It is thus, clear that in terms of section 3 of the afore-mentioned Act only the Anti-Corruption Department of the Government of Sindh is responsible and has jurisdiction to inquiries into any allegation of corruption against a civil servant and thereafter an inquiry is held and proceedings initiated for the purposes of prosecution of the said civil servant. As much is also evident from the Preamble to the Act which provides for the constitution of a special agency for investigation of offences relating to corruption by or enquiry into misconduct of public servants etc. Similarly, under rule 11 of the Rules framed under the Act the Establishment has been given sole jurisdiction to register a case under the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Act and under sub-rule (4) a criminal case has to be registered by the Establishment at the Anti-Corruption Police Station. When no such notified Police Station is available initially as per sub-rule (5) the case may be registered at the local Police Station but then the District Police has no jurisdiction whatsoever to continue the investigation and the relevant record is to be made over to the Anti-Corruption Establishment. In view of the abovesaid provisions it is crystal clear that the F.I.R. In question lodged by the Police Authorities against the applicant suffers from a basic legal defect viz. It is totally without jurisdiction as an Anti-Corruption Police Station is available at Mirpur Khas. Consequently as per the well- settled principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court it has been the practice and procedure when it is demonstrated to the High Court when a complaint, investigation report or other steps either in lodging of an F.1.R. Or prosecution of a criminal case is patently against the provision of law or otherwise no case can possibly be made out then this Court has been clothed with the jurisdiction to quash the same as no useful purpose would be served to keep the matter lingering on. This in fact amounts to an abuse of the process of a Court of law. For this proposition reference can be made to Miraj Khan v. Gul Ahmed and 3 others (2000 SCM R 122), Mian Munir Ahmed v. The State (1985 SCM R 257) and State through Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and others v.
7. Gulzar Muhammad and others (1998 SCM R 873). In the circumstances I would, therefore convert this application into an application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. And quash the F.I.R. In question viz. Bearing Crime No,129 of 2000 of Police Station Kot Ghulam Muhammad. The Police Authorities are directed to adopt the proper procedure as provided under the 1991 Act.
8. ' The application stands disposed of. Surety furnished by the applicant is hereby discharged.
9. F.I.R. Quashed.