former ACS Fata Secretariat but in vain. He served notice on him under section 94 Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), but the complete record was still not provided. The court stated that now the inspector had instituted a complaint in this court against the respondent and the court issued a notice to him to appear.
“In response, the respondent put appearance through his counsel, Iqbal Ahmad Durrani, who submitted written reply to the notice objecting to jurisdiction of FIA into investigation in the matter and the jurisdiction of this court on taking cognizance of the issue,” the order stated.
It was stated that pro and contra arguments of Ayazul Haq, prosecutor for the state and Iqbal Ahmad Durrani have been heard.
It said that counsel for the ACS Fata diverted attention of the court towards Article 246 of the Constitution and submitted that the tribal areas have been defined in it.
He argued that Article 247 (7) barred the jurisdiction of all courts relating to the issues of the tribal areas. He argued that the FIA Act had not been extended to the Fata.
He concluded that the FIA cannot initiate any enquiry and this court cannot take cognizance of any matter relating to the tribal areas. He requested that the notice may be withdrawn and the complaint dismissed.
Conversely, FIA’s deputy director law supported the enquiry proceedings as well as institution of complaint in this court on the ground that the alleged offence which is required to be inquired and investigated in public interest took place in the settled area because the Fata Secretariat was working in the limits of Peshawar.
Keeping in view provisions of procedural law, the court stated that public funds were utilised at tribal area, the result in the shape of embezzlement/misappropriation has allegedly ensued in the office of the respondent, working in the territorial jurisdiction of this court as well as the FIA.
Therefore, under Section 179 Cr PC both the FIA and this court do have jurisdiction in the matter.