KARACHI: Police may prosecute corrupt officials: Supreme Court ruling
By Shujaat Ali Khan
KARACHI, Nov 8: The police are empowered by law to register and prosecute corruption cases against public servants, the Supreme Court declared on Tuesday while reviving a case against seven provincial government employees.
The case against the accused employees of the Sindh Agricultural Services and Storage Corporation of Larkana was registered by the Naudero police station under Sections 409 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code and was being tried by a special anti-corruption court when it was ordered to be quashed by the Sindh High Court.
On a petition moved by the under-trial employees, the high court held that under the Sindh Enquiries and Anti-Corruption Rules, 1993, framed under the Sindh Enquiries and Anti-Corruption Act, 1991, the Anti-Corruption Establishment had exclusive jurisdiction to register and investigate a criminal case against a public servant and that, too, with prior approval of the competent authority.
The local (Naudero) police, the court observed, had no authority to register an FIR in the case and prosecute the employees. The anti-corruption court terminated its proceedings.
The Sindh government filed a petition for leave to appeal against the high court quashment order. The petition came up before an SC bench, comprising Justices Rana Bhagwandas and Saiyed Saeed Ashhad.
Appearing for the appellant government, Additional Advocate-General Dr Qazi Khalid Ali argued that the local police were fully empowered to proceed against the accused employees.
Citing the relevant enactments and superior court orders, the AAG said the provisions of the Sindh Enquiries and Anti-Corruption Ordinance, 1991, which created and empowered the Anti-Corruption Establishment, were in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. The police powers under the code of criminal procedure and other laws remained intact under a provision of the 1991 ordinance itself.
Under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, the AAG submitted, an anti-corruption court had the jurisdiction to take cognizance of any offence committed within its territorial limits and triable under the anti-corruption law on receiving a complaint of facts constituting such offence or upon a report of such facts made by any police officer. A police FIR is virtually a report of facts constituting an offence and the anti-corruption court rightly took cognizance of the offence and assumed jurisdiction in the case.
As for the 1993 anti-corruption rules, the AAG said they were violative of the parent ordinance of 1991 and had been so held by the high court, which had declared them ‘ultra vires’. The framing of the impugned rules was, in fact, an exercise in legislation and abuse of rule making authority, argued the AAG.
