Law: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898

Section: 561A

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 409.420,468,471

Law: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947

Section: 5(2)

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 190

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)------S. 561-A--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.409/420/468/471/ 109/34---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document, criminal misconduct---Constitutional petition---Petition for quashment of F.I.R., dismissal of---Two F.I.Rs. registered for the same matter---Similarity of offences alleged in said two F.I.Rs.---Final reports/challans for F.I.Rs. not submitted---Effect---First F.I.R. contained the allegation that accused claimed ownership of land belonging to the complainant, on basis of fake stamp paper---Second F.I.R. was lodged against the accused and patwari alleging that patwari had kept a false entry in the record showing possession of accused over the land in question---Accused contended that Special Judge had taken cognizance of second F.I.R. and granted bail to accused, whereas bail in respect of first F.I.R. was still pending, therefore, first F.I.R. should be quashed, and that he could not be vexed twice for the same offence---Validity---Strong material evidence was available on record to connect accused with the commission of the offence alleged---Final reports/challans had not been submitted by the police for the two F.I.Rs., therefore, it was not possible to ascertain that the offences alleged in the F.I.Rs. were the same---Allegations levelled in second F.I.R. were quite different, which mostly defined tampering in the revenue record by patwari, who was a public servant, therefore, the offence was to be tried by the Special Judge coupled with the offence falling under S.5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947---Despite the fact that a public servant had been cited in the second F.I.R., ordinary police was continuing with the investigation, when same should have been immediately transferred to Federal Investigation Agency (FIA)---Present case, in circumstances, was neither a case of double jeopardy nor of double incrimination--- Constitutional petition for quashment of F.I.R. was dismissed, in…