Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 355 of 1981, decided on 6th April, 1981.

(Against the judgment and order dated 27-10-1980 of the Lahore High Court in W. P. No. 9045 of 1980).

-- Ss. 5(2) & 5-A-Investigation of offence under S. 5(2) by Sub Inspector and Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police after obtaining permission from Magistrate of First Class as required under S. 5-A Contention that such investigation was in violation of S. 5-A-Held, wholly misconceived.-[Investigation].

-- S. 3 read with S. 8-Investigation of offences of corruption-Police Officers attached to Anti-Smuggling (Rice and Paddy Mobile Team Held, competent to investigate into offences of corruption-Contention that such offences could be investigated only by members of Anti-Corruption Establishment-Held, not correct.

M. A. Saleem, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. M. Aslam, Advocate-on-. Record for Petitioner.

S. M. Zubair, Additional Advocate-General (Punjab) with Sh. Ejaz Ali,

Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 6th April, 1981.

.--This petition by Abdul Latif is directed against the judgment of. High Court dated 27-10-1980, whereby his writ petition was dismissed.

2. The facts leading to the present petition an briefly that on a complaint containing allegations of illegalities and irregularities against the Ration Depot No. P./10, Multan, a raid was conducted by the officials of the Food Department, which disclosed an embezzlement/misappropriation to the tune of Rs. 30 lacs. A case was accordingly registered at Multan against some officials of the Food Department including Abdul Latif, petitioner, a Food Grain Inspector. The case was entrusted for investigation to certain police officials attached to the Anti Smuggling (Rice & Paddy) Mobile Team, Multan, including Muhammad Sadiq A. S. I. Respondent No. 3 and Muhammad Ashraf Bajwa, S. I. (respondent No. 2)

Abdul Latif, petitioner, filed a writ petition challenging their competency to investigate the case against him. The High Court, however dismissed the writ petition vide the impugned judgment holding that the above-mentioned Police officials were competent to carry out the investigation. Hence, the present petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner before us submits that investigation of the case by - respondents Nos. 2 and 3 who are S. I. and A.S. I. respectively in violation of section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 which reads as follows :-

"Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 189s) no officer below the rank of Inspector shall investigate any offence punishable under any of the sections of the Pakistan Penal Code Act (XLV of 1860) mentioned in section 3 or any offence punishable under section 5 without an order of a Magistrate of the First Class or make an arrest therefore without a warrant."

5. He, therefore, submitted that the investigation of the case by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 should have been declared as illegal by the High Court. This contention is wholly misconceived because a reading of the above-mentioned section would show that it provides that a Police Officer of the rank of Inspector or above could investigate any of the offences mentioned therein including an offence under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act without the permission of a Magistrate, but a police officer below the rank of Inspector could investigate such a case only after obtaining permission from a Magistrate of the First Class. Now, it is admitted by the learned counsel that such a permission had, in fact, been obtained by the above mentioned police officers. An affidavit to this effect has also been filed by Raja Aurangzeb, S. P., respondent No. 4.

6. The learned counsel contended next that section 3 of the West Pakistan Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance, 1961 provides that

"Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, Government may constitute an Establishment to be known as the Anti-Corruption Establishment, or the investigation of offence set forth in the Schedule, and for the holding of preliminary inquiries for determining whether such offence shall be investigated, or departmental inquiries into the conduct of any public servant concerned in such offences shall be held."

7. He submitted that such an Establishment had, in fact, been created and it being a special law; only members of this Establishment could investi gate the offences of corruption, and that, therefore, Police officers attached to the Anti Smuggling (Rice & Paddy) Mobile Team could not investigate such a case. This contention overlooks the provision of section 8 of the said Ordinance, which provides

"The provisions of this Ordinance are in addition to and not in deroga tion of any other law for the time being in force."

In view of the above discussion we find that the petition has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.