Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition No. 145 of 1985, decided on 11th November, 1985.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court at Lahore, dated 30‑1‑1985 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 601 of 1984).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161‑‑Federal Investigation Agency Act (VIII of 1974), S. 3‑‑Jurisdiction‑‑Patwari's conviction under S. 161, P.P.C. challenged‑‑Plea that Inspector Federal Investi gation Agency had no jurisdiction to arrange raid in his official capacity and criminal proceedings thus initiated were void ab initio, repelled‑ Petitioner having been brought for trial before Court of competent jurisdiction, tried and convicted, impugned order was not open to interference‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

Abdul Mannan v. State P L D 1958 Kar. 643 distinguished.

Crown v. Mehar Ali P L D 1956 F C 106 quoted.

Sh. Shaukat Ali, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Sh. Ejaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.

Date of hearing: 11th November, 1985.

The petitioner who was a Patwari, was apprehended in a raid while accepting Rs.500 as illegal gratification from complainant Muhabat. He was sent up for trial before the Judge Anti‑Corruption, Sargodha and Faisalabad Division by the Anti Corruption Establishment, Faisalabad.

2. The prosecution story is that on 13‑5‑1982 the complainant Muhabat approached Nasar Haider, Inspector F.I.A. and apprised him of the demand of illegal gratification made by the petitioner who happened to be a Patwari, of Mouza Pindi Isa. Nasar Haider approached the Assistant Commissioner/ A.D.M., Jaranwala with a petition requesting for deputing a Magistrate to supervise the raid (P.W.) Hamid Nawaz Sheikh. Magistrate First Class was accordingly detailed to supervise the raid. The complainant' Muhabat was produced before the Magistrate and his statement was recorded. According to the complainant the petitioner had demanded Rs.1,000 for issuing a no objection certificate, which was required in connection with the installation of a tube‑well on his land. In the back ground of the above facts raid was organized and the petitioner was apprehended with the tainted money (currency notes P. 1 to P. 5 which were recovered from his pocket). The accused soon after his apprehension was called upon to make statement which was recorded by the Magistrate as Exh. P/E. The statement, which was made in Urdu, was as under:‑‑

< --[if gte vml 1]> < [endif]-->

3. The prosecution examined 5 witnesses including Nasar Haider, Inspector F.I.R. who had set in motion the machinery of law. The defence of the petitioner was one of denial and false implication. No witnesses were produced in support of his case. The learned Special Judge Anti‑Corruption found the petitioner guilty of accepting illegal gratification of Rs.500 and convicting hint under section 161, P.P.C. sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 months and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 and in default further rigorous imprisonment for 5 months.

4. The above judgment was challenged by the petitioner in the Lahore High Court and his appeal was dismissed as per impugned judgment.

5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner were void ab initio inasmuch as the Inspector F.I.A. had no jurisdiction to arrange the raid in his official capacity because he was supposed to investigate the cases relating to public servants belonging to the Federal Government alone. He invited our attention to section 3 of the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 according to which Federal Government is empowered to constitute an Agency to be called Federal Investigation Agency for inquiry into, and investigation of the offences specified in the Schedule. The more pertinent provision, however, seems to be the preamble of the Act according to which the Federal Investigation Agency was established for the investigation of certain offences committed in connection with matters concerning the Federal Government and for matters connected therewith. In support of his above legal contention the learned counsel referred to the case of Abdul Mannan v . State, PLD 1958 Kar. 643. It. was submitted that the proceedings in this case were initiated by an unauthorised officer and hence the same were void ab initio. The judgment is not applicable on the facts of this case. In the above case, the investigation was conducted throughout by a Police Officer who was below the rank of Deputy Superintendent Police without r obtaining any order of First Class Magistrate which was necessary under section 5‑A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, referred to Federal Court decision reported as the Crown v. Mehar Ali, PLD 1956 F C 106 which is a nearer answer to the contention raised herein. Besides the petitioner was properly brought for trial before a Court of competent jurisdiction, tried and convicted. It was not contended that the trial Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. There is nothing on merits as to call for any interference.

6. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.

M. I . 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.