Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 1344 of 1985, decided on 3rd June, 1985.

‑‑ Ss. 2 & 5‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468, 471 & 379 Prevention of Corruption Act (II of‑ 1947), S. 5 (2)‑Federal Investigation Agency‑Jurisdiction ‑ Federal Government having more than ninety per cent. shares in respondent‑Company‑Federal Investigation Agency, held, had jurisdiction to investigate cases relating to such Company‑Accused charged for unlawfully and unauthorisedly installing gas connections‑Challenging registration and investigation of case against them by Federal Investigation

Agency on ground that it was constituted for investigation of certain offences committed in connection with matters concerning Federal Government and that it had no jurisdiction to investigate a case relating to respondent Public Limited Company/Sue. Northern Pipeline's Ltd.‑Admitted position was that 90 o shares of respon dent‑Company were owned by Federal Government or Corporation set tip by Federal Government‑Offences allegedly committed in relation‑ to revenues of respondent‑Company were offences in connection with matters concerning Federa1 Government Federal Investigation Agency, therefore; held, had jurisdiction to inquire into and investigate said offence‑Accused employee of respondent- Company, held further, were public servants ‑within meaning of S. 2(e) of Act VIII of 1975, as respondent‑Company was a body/Corporation. controlled or administered under authority of Federal Government Jurisdiction of Federal Investigation Agency to inquire'‑into and investigate alleged offences against accused, therefore, not open to any exception.

Shah Muhammad Khan v. Federation of, Pakistan P L D 1958 Lah. 137'and Fateh Khan v. Sharaaf Khan P L D 1984 Lah. 106 rel.

Ch. Ijaz Ahmad for Petitioners.,

Muhammad Qayyum Malik, Deputy Attorney‑General for Respondents.

On a complaint made by Abdul Rahman, Regional Manager, Sui Northern Gas .Pipeline,, Limited, Industrial Area. Gurumangat Road, Lahore, alleging that a large number of cases have been unearthed where people lead unlawfully and unauthorised installed gas connection to their premises by practising‑ fraud arid forgery with the active connivance of certain officials of the Company, V. I A., Lahore registered a case tinder sections 420,, 468, 471 and 379, P'. P. C. read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, 'on‑ 20‑3‑1985. Ch. Farzand Ali, Inspector, respondent No. 3 was deputed to investigate the matter. During the investigation of the cfise, Javed lqbal petitioner No. 1 and Asghar Hamid petitioner No. 3 were arrested. Syed Sikandar Shah, petitioner No. 2 was only associated with the investigation:

2. The petitioners have filed this constitutional petition to challenge the registration and investigation of the ‑case by F. I_ A. The case of the petitioners is that F. 1. A. was constituted for investigation of certain offences committed in connection with the matters concerning the Federal Government and it has no jurisdiction to investigate a case relating to a public limited Company like Sui Northern . Pipelines Ltd, respondent No. 4, hereinafter called the respondent‑Company.

3. On Court's direction, the. learned Deputy Attorney‑General appeared for the respondents at the preliminary stage and submitted parawise comments on behalf of F. 1. A. It was stated in the comments that the Federal Government is very much concerned in the affairs of the respon dent‑Company because majority of its shares "about more than 90 ;o are owned by the Federal Government or Corporations set up by the Federal Government". It was further stated that the respondent‑Company is also controlled by the Federal Government through 'a Board of Directors majority of whom are senior officers of the Federal Government or of the Corporations set up by the Federal Government and that being so, its employees are public servants within the meaning of section 2 (e) of the Federal Investigation Agency Act. scheduled offences committed by the employees of the respondent‑Company can, therefore, be inquired into and investigated by F. I. A.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Deputy Attorney‑General for the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners ‑ argued that the F. f. A. could inquire into and investigate only such offences which directly concern the Federal Government acid it had no jurisdiction to, investigate the offences which allegedly have been committed in connection with the matters concerning the respondent‑Company.

5. Before dealing with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it may be of advantage to refer to some of the provisions of F. I. A. Act VIII of 1975 hereinafter called the Act. The preamble to the Act refers to the, expediency of providing for the Constitution of a Federal Investigation. Agency for the investigation of certain offences committed in connection with the matters concerning the Federal Government and for matters connected therewith. ‑ ‑

Subsection (2) of section 1, declares that .the Act. extends to the whole of Pakistan and applies to all citizens of Pakistan and public servants wherever they, may be.

Section 2 (e) defines "public servant". According to the definition, "public servant" means a public servant as defined in section 21 of the Pakistan Penal Code and includes an employee of any Corporation or other body of Organization set up, controlled of administered by or under the authority of the Federal Government:

Section 3 of the Act provides for the constitution of the Federal Investigation Agency "for inquiry into, and investigation of offences specified in the schedule, including an attempt or conspiracy to commit, and abetment of any such offences".

Section 5 of the Act which relates to the powers of the Members of the F. I. A. states that subject to any order which the Federal Government may make in this behalf, the members of the Agency. shall, for the purpose of an inquiry or investigation under this Act, have throughout Pakistan such powers, including powers relating to search,, arrest of persons and seizure of property, acid such duties; privileges and‑ liabilities as the officers of a Provincial Police have in relation to the investigation of offences under the Code or any other law for time being in force.

Subsection (3) of section 5 empowers any member of the F. I. A. not below the rank of a Sub‑Inspector authorised by the Director‑General in that behalf, to arrest without a warrant any person who has committed, or against whom a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed any of the scheduled offences.

6. It is not in dispute that the offences aforementioned in respect of which the present case has been registered are specified in the Schedule to the Act. However, question which has been mooted and requires determination is as to whether the said offences can be said to have been committed in connection with the matters concerning the 'Federal Govern ment. To put it differently: whether the affairs of the respondent‑Company are matters concerning the Federal Government. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the respondent‑Company being a public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act has its own independent: entity and as such its affairs and the offences committed therewith do not fall within‑ the purview of the Act so as to attract the jurisdiction of F. 1. A. which jurisdiction is confined only to the offences committed in connection with the matters which concern the Federal Government. '

It is no doubt true that the respondent‑.Company is Public Limited Company but more than 90 %of it; shares are owned by the Federal Government or the Corporations set up by the ,Federal Government. Majority of the Directors of the respondent‑Company are also senior officers of the Federal Government or of the Corporations set up by the Federal Government. In these circumstances, the affairs of the respondent Company and particularly any toss caused to its revenues cannot be a matter of vital concern to the Federal Government. It may be observed that the expression used in the preamble to the Act on which the learned counsel for the petitioners himself relied for his contention is " offences committed in connection with the matters concerning the Federal Govern ment". The word 'concerning' is susceptible of a very wide connection. According to the Black's Law Dictionary, (Fifth Edition) it means to pertain, relate, or belong to; be of interest or importance to; have connection with; to have reference to; to involve; to affect the interest of. Thus, any matter which is of some interest or importance to the Federal Government would be a‑ matter concerning it. Similar expression .. viz. "matter's concerning the Provincial Government" used in Pakistan Special Police Establishment Ordinance VIII of 1958 which was a predecessor legislation of F. I. A. Act, came to be interpreted in Shah Muhammad Kiwi; v. Federation of Pakistan (P L D 1958 Lah. 137) wherein a Division Bench of this Court held as follows:‑

"Having regard to the generality of the words used in the Ordinance, we have reached the conclusion that offences, relating to which investigation was taken in hand by the Special Police Establish ment in the present case, concerning, as they did, the finances, of the District Board, were offences, in connection with the matters concerning Provincial Government and, therefore, the Special Police Establishment has jurisdiction to conduct the relevant investigation."

In the precedent case, misappropriation of the funds of a District Board was held to be "a matter of vital concern to the Provincial Govern ment" for the reason that a major part of the funds was contributed by the Government' and it also exercised control ‑ over the affairs of the Board. While coming .to this conclusion learned Judge took particular note of the fact that the expression used in the relevant Ordinance was "matters concerning the Provincial Government" and not "matters or affairs of the Provincial Government" (Underlining' is mine).

7. Respectfully following the view taken in the case, cited above, I hold that in view of the admitted position that 90% shares of the respondent‑Company are owned by the Federal Government of the Cor porations set up by the Federal Government, the affairs of the respondent. Company are very much the concern of the Federal 6overrtinent. That' being so, offences allegedly committed in relation to the revenue of the respondent‑Company are offences in connection with the matters concerning the Federal Government. F. I. A,. has, therefore, jurisdiction to inquire[ into and investigate the said offences

8. Apart from what has been said above, petitioners being ‑the employees of the respondent‑Company are "public servants" within the meaning of section (e) of the Act in so far as respondent‑Company is a body,: Corporation controlled or administered under the authority of the Federal Government. In an unreported judgment rendered in the respondent Company (W_ P. No. 3340; 83,, it was held that respondent‑Company "is e run under the authority of the Federal Government". In yet another case reported as Fareh Khan v. Sharaaf Khan (P L D 1984 Lah. 106) it was held that the Government of Pakistan has controlling shares and interest in the respon dent‑Company. For this reason also, F. I. A. shall have the jurisdiction to investigate the case against the employees of the respondent‑Company being public servants within the meaning of F. I. A. Act.

9. Upshot of the above discussion is that the jurisdiction of F. I. A. to inquire into and investigate the alleged offences is not open to any exception. Resultantly, this petition has no substance and the same is dismissed in limine.

M. Y. H. 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.