Justice Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi of the Lahore High Court has quashed an FIR registered against chairman of a private housing scheme Haji Muhammad Rafiq and observed that the Rules of Punjab Private Site Development Schemes 2005 clearly showed that even if the findings of the inquiry report were totally believed.
The petitioner and other accused nominated in the FIR could not be held as violators of section 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1974. After hearing the arguments in the case the judge observed that the total number of mortgaged plots were 30 percent of the total area of the housing scheme but 50 percent plots were redeemed only after 20 days without completing the development work and without any authority and contrary to mortgage deed.
The judge held "According to the by-laws of the society at least 2 percent area was required to be reserved for the graveyard but no area was left for this purpose despite the fact that the same was shown in the approved plan." Moreover, the commercial plaza has been constructed upon the area shown as graveyard in the site plan without approval of building plan.
The record further revealed that the partial redemption of plots was not the condition in the by-laws of the society but the same was done by the functionaries of the society in collusion with the officers of TMA Aziz Bhatti Town, Lahore, judge held.
The case record also established that the registration of case was recommended against Muhammad Rizwan, TMO, Rai Muhammad Ashraf TO, Javed Iqbal Bajwa TO, Muhammad Jahangir Enforcement Inspector of Aziz Bhatti Town and the petitioner Haji Rafiq, the chairman of the housing scheme. But the FIR was registered against the petitioner, his wife, his son and others against whom the FIR was not recommended by the inquiry officer.
The judge while allowing the writ petition declared the registration of FIR without lawful authority and ordered to quash. The FIR in question was got registered by Chaudhry Niamat Ali Nagra advocate against the petitioner under sections 420, 468, 470 and section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 with police station Anti Corruption Lahore.
Petitioner's counsel Azam Nazir Tarar argued that the FIR was registered on the basis of mala fide on the part of the complainant as well as officers of Anti-Corruption Establishment (ACE). He said in the facts and circumstances the ACE was not competent to register a case. Moreover, he said, the FIR was registered despite restrictive order of the High Court, which was clear violation of the court's order. He further argued that the section 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act was not attracted in the case and the inquiry was not conducted according to the rules.
Comments
Comments are closed.