IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam 
Mr. Justice Yahya Afridi 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
Criminal Petition No.907 of 2020 and  
Civil Petition No.1965 of 2020 
(Against the order dated 08.06.2020 passed by the 
Lahore 
High 
Court 
Lahore 
in 
Crl. 
Misc. 
No. 
74081-B/2019 and W.P. No.51049 of 2019) 
 
 
 
Mian Haroon Riaz Lucky& another 
(In Cr.P. No.907 of 2020 & C.P. No.1965 of 2020) 
 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
The State, etc. 
(In Cr.P. No.907/2020& C.P. 1965/2020) 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Abid Saqi, ASC along with 
(In both cases) 
petitioners. 
 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR 
 
 
For the State: 
Rana Arif Kamal Noon,  
 
Prosecutor General Punjab 
 
Rana Abdul Majeed,  
 
Addl. P.G. Punjab 
 
Mirza Abid Majeed, 
 
Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab 
with Ihsan Ullah, DSP 
 
For the Complainant: 
In person 
(In both cases) 
 
 
For S.N.G.P.L.: 
Ch. Hafeez Ullah Yaqub, ASC 
 
Mr. Ali Rukh Khattak, L.O. SNGPL 
 
On Court Notice: 
Mr. Sajid Ilyas Bhatti, 
 
 
Addl. Attorney General for Pakistan 
 
Date of hearing: 
30.09.2019. 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Mian Haroon Riaz 
Lucky and Mian Salman Riaz, real brothers, petitioners herein, run 
Criminal Petition No.907 of 2020 &Civil Petition No.1965 of 2020 
 
2
an ice factory under the name and style of Sartaj Ice Factory, 
within the precincts of Police Station Baghbanpura Lahore. The 
factory is powered by natural gas and it is alleged that the owners 
have regularly been siphoning off natural gas to the detriment of 
public exchequer, facing a number of criminal cases albeit with 
impunity. A raiding party, headed by Sharafat Ali, Distribution 
Officer, UFG, Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited, Lahore Region, 
carried out the raid on the premises on 29.5.2019 at 3:00 p.m. to 
detect a gas pipeline, stealth underneath the road, connected with 
the main supply, surreptitiously linked with the factory across the 
road. The operation, during the process, was resisted by the 
petitioners, joined by four lawyers to obstruct excavation on the 
pretext of an injunctive order; the police were called in, however, 
the accused, contumaciously denied access to the police 
contingent and locked themselves inside the premises. Despite 
fierce resistance, nonetheless, the raiding party succeeded to 
secure, vide inventory, the paraphernalia employed for the theft. A 
formal case was registered vide FIR No.938 of 2019 under section 
462-C of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 with Police Station 
Baghbanpura, cancellation whereof, was prayed for through Writ 
Petition No.51049 of 2019, titled as Mian Haroon Riaz Lucky, etc. 
Vs. The Station House Officer, etc. The petitioners inordinately 
avoided arrest despite successive dismissals of their pre-arrest bail 
petitions, both in the Court of Session as well as by the High 
Court.  
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that 
registration of the impugned FIR, being abuse of process of law, 
calculated for motives, oblique and unjust, cannot legally sustain 
after advent of the Gas (Theft, Control and Recovery) Act, 2016  
(Act No.XI of 2016) “the Act” that came into force on the 23rd of 
March, 2016 much earlier than the alleged date of occurrence i.e. 
29.5.2019. It is argued that the Act has introduced a new category 
of offences in order to cope with the crimes relating to tampering 
with gas pipelines or theft thereof, trial whereof, falls within the 
exclusive domain of the Gas Utility Court constituted under section 
4 thereof. According to the learned counsel, the new mechanism 
left no scope for registration of a First Information Report and 
investigative steps, purported to be consequent thereupon in view 
Criminal Petition No.907 of 2020 &Civil Petition No.1965 of 2020 
 
3
of specific bar provided under subsection 2 of section 5 of the Act 
that mandatorily required assumption of cognizance of an offence 
by a Gas Utility Court only on a complaint made in writing by a 
person duly authorized in this behalf by a gas company in respect 
whereof the offence was committed. It is next argued that the Act 
replaced the procedure for search of any premises suspected as 
being used for theft of gas in view of power of search conferred 
under section 23 of the Act on an officer or employee of a gas 
utility company not below BPS-17, specifically authorized to carry 
out the search; he has finally referred to section 31 of the Act to 
demonstrate overriding application of the Act. It is argued that 
combined reading of above provisions of the Act unmistakably 
confirms that the police were divested of the authority either to 
register a First Information Report, carry out search or arrest an 
accused suspected for the commission of theft of gas and, thus, 
the impugned First Information Report is liable to be quashed to 
prevent abuse of process of law as well as for being in 
contravention of the law currently applicable to the alleged offence. 
While arguing Criminal Petition No.907 of 2020, it is submitted 
that, be that as it may, the petitioners had long ago leased out the 
factory through a duly documented transaction and, thus, were 
not responsible for any wrong if done at all by the lessee. Since no 
complaint, as contemplated by the Act, has since been filed till 
date, the petitioners’ remission into custody would serve no 
purpose except to bring disrepute to them, respectable citizens of 
stature, concluded the learned counsel. Reliance has been placed 
on the cases reported as M.D. Tahir Vs. Federal Government and 12 
others(1989 CLC 1369), Sher Ali Baz and another Vs. The 
Secretary, Establishment Division and others (PLD 1991 S.C. 143), 
Messrs A.M. Industrial Corporation Limited Vs. Aijaz Mehmood and 
others (2006 SCMR 47),Muhammad Mohsin Ghuman and others Vs. 
Government of Punjab through Home Secretary, Lahore and others, 
(2013 SCMR 85),Muhammad Arslan Ahmad Vs. The State (2017 
P.Cr.L.J. 434), Muhammad Shah and others Vs. Federal Investment 
Agency and others (2017 SCMR 1218),General Manager SNGPL Vs. 
Safeer Ullah Khan and others (2018 YLR 1721),Syed Mushahid 
Shah & others Vs. Federal Investigation Agency & others (2018 
Criminal Petition No.907 of 2020 &Civil Petition No.1965 of 2020 
 
4
SCMR 1812) and Wajid Khan Vs. The State and others   
(2020 P. Cr.L.J. 454). 
3. 
 
The learned Additional Attorney General for Pakistan 
assisted by the learned Prosecutor General Punjab contested the 
motions in a unison. According to the learned Law Officers, the 
legislature in its wisdom has introduced a new regime with a view 
to effectively prosecute/deal with the cases of theft of a valuable 
national resource as well as recovery of outstanding arrears by 
setting up tribunals comprising a District & Sessions Judge with 
exclusive jurisdiction to follow procedures speedy as well as 
expeditious in jurisdictions both civil as well as criminal. Changes 
in nomenclatures of offences, constitution of a new tribunal with 
exclusive jurisdiction and a special procedure on a fast track, to 
take 
assumption 
of 
cognizance, 
introduced 
by 
the 
Act, 
nonetheless, does not relegate procedural plenary powers vesting 
in the police, under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to 
register a criminal case, carry out searches and effect arrest of 
offenders in order to investigate the case to be placed before the 
Gas Utility Court through the procedure provided under the Act. 
The learned Law Officers surveyed subsection 4 of section 5 in 
conjunction with section 24 of the Act to argue that except in cases 
of theft by a domestic consumer, not a case in hand, the provisions 
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1998) for the 
registration of a criminal case, arrest of the accused for the 
purpose of investigation, were applicable with full force; the only 
rider placed by the Act was requirement of a complaint, in writing by 
an authorized person. It is submitted that the new requirement was 
for assumption of cognizance by the Court through taking on 
board an officer with technical know-how. Introduction of a new 
penal regime to cope with the cases of theft of natural gas does not 
imply abolition of the crime warranting cancellation of the First 
Information Report recorded under the previous provisions of law, 
concluded the learned Law Officers. Reliance has been placed on 
the cases reported as The State Vs. NH Poori & others (PLD 1959 
(W.P.) Karachi 392), Muhammad Nazeer Vs. Fazal-e-Karim & others 
PLD 2012 SC 892), Nadil Wali Vs. Sumaya Gul & another  
(2020 SCMR 414). 
4. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
Criminal Petition No.907 of 2020 &Civil Petition No.1965 of 2020 
 
5
5. 
 
In the wake of supply/provision of natural gas as a 
new source of energy to the domestic and commercial consumers, 
the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 was amended through Criminal 
Law (Amendment Act) 2011 (Act XX of 2011) so as to incorporate a 
penal regime to cope with cases of theft, pilferage, interference and 
tampering, etc. with the distribution system and matters ancillary 
therewith, covering wide spectrum of products under the definition 
of petroleum. It provided a mechanism for prosecution of offences 
set out in the newly inserted chapter i.e. Chapter XVII A. Through 
Act No.XI of 2016, the parliament enacted The Gas (Theft, Control 
& Recovery) Act 2016 which came into force throughout Pakistan 
on 23rd of March, 2016. The new law comprehensively deals with 
the cases of theft, tampering with auxiliary or distribution gas 
pipelines and with meters thereof including causing wastage or 
damage thereto. It sets up a tribunal comprising a District& 
Sessions Judge to prosecute both offences as well as claims for 
recovery of loss to the public exchequer. A comparative analysis of 
changes brought about by the Act clearly illustrates that the new 
regime under exclusive jurisdiction solely deals with the cases of 
gas with no change in the generic character of the offences earlier 
enlisted under the Chapter XVII A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 
1860 except that it provided a new mechanism for assumption of 
exclusive jurisdiction by the Gas Utility Court to try offences as a 
Court of Session under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act 
V of 1898), however, it required a complaint, in writing by a person 
authorized in this behalf by a Gas Utility Company. The offences 
listed above remained cognizable as well as non-bailable with only 
immunity extended to a domestic consumer, otherwise liable to be 
dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Code ibid. It is 
in the backdrop of above statutory changes, the petitioners sought 
annulment of First Information Report on the grounds enumerated 
above.  
6. 
 
Survey of above regime unmistakably confirms that a 
listed offence under the new regime by a commercial consumer, 
notwithstanding statutory changes remain a cognizable offence 
defined under section 4 (1)(f) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1898, as under: 
Criminal Petition No.907 of 2020 &Civil Petition No.1965 of 2020 
 
6
“Cognizable offence”. “Cognizable case.” “cognizable 
offence” means an offence for, and cognizable 
case” means a case in, which a police-officer, 
may, in accordance with the second schedule or 
under any law for the time being in force, arrest 
without warrant: 
 
As pointed out above, the only concession available under the new 
regime is available to a domestic consumer which is not a case 
before us, as is amply evident from the contents of First 
Information Report, reproduced below: 
 
Similarly, restriction placed by section 23 of the Act ibid is merely 
directory in nature, to be followed having regard to the exigencies 
of a particular situation, as far as practicable; non-compliance 
whereof, cannot be interpreted to have vitiated the process of law 
as such a construction cannot be visualized without incurring the 
possibility of loss of evidence regarding theft/pilferage of a precious 
public resource, a situation never contemplated by the law makers. 
Similarly, there is a wide variety of offences both under the 
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 as well as under various special laws 
that require prior sanction for prosecution for the purposes of 
assumption of cognizance by the trial Court, the requirement does 
not stand in impediment to the registration of First Information 
Report, arrest of an offender or commencement of investigation 
thereof as the clog of sanction transiently relates to the steps 
Criminal Petition No.907 of 2020 &Civil Petition No.1965 of 2020 
 
7
preparatory thereto by the authority designated under the Statute; 
in the present case, a procedure to be routed through section 5 (2) 
of the Act. 
 
Argument that the petitioners had long before leased out the 
premises to a third party and as such were not responsible for any 
wrongdoing, if at all, by the lessee is beside the mark. These are 
factual controversies which the High Court has rightly declined to 
attend. There are no shortcuts in criminal prosecutions and it is 
certainly far less than expedient to pre-empt designated tribunals 
to exercise jurisdiction so as to try offences on the strength of 
evidence brought-forth by the prosecution, the only known method 
both to establish the charge as well as to vindicate a defence. 
Similarly, while an accused is certainly entitled to a fair trial under 
“Due Process of Law”, it is also sovereign attribute of State to carry 
out prosecutions through its agencies in accordance with law with 
a reasonable opportunity to drive home the charge against the 
offenders to maintain/enforce its writ and effectively uphold 
majesty of laws within the realm. It is far more important when at 
risk is a resource commonly owned by the people. Equality before 
law without equal protection thereof is a travesty. We have found 
the High Court while declining the request well within the remit of 
law consistently expounded by this Court in the cases reported as 
Umar Hayat Versus The State (1995 S C M R 1005), Mst. Mehr un 
Nisa Versus Zain ul Abidin and 5 others (1995 SCMR 1139) Ahmed 
Saeed Versus The State and another (1996 S C M R 186), Miraj 
Khan Versus Gul Ahmed and 3 others (2000 S C M R 122),Shah 
Jehan 
Khetran 
Versus 
Sh. 
Mureed 
Hussain 
and 
others  
(2005 S C M R 306), Muhammad Bashir Versus Muhammad 
Usman and others (2003 S C M R 1339),Muhammad Yasin Versus 
S.S.P. and others(2004 S C M R 868)Muhammad Saleem Bhatti 
Versus Syed Safdar Ali Rizvi And 2 Others (2006 S C M R 
1957),Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan and others Versus 
Mian Asim Fareed and others (2006 C L D 625),Col. Shah Sadiq 
versus Muhammad Ashiq and others (2006 S C M R 276), Rafique 
Bibi Versus Muhammad Sharif and others (2006 S  C  M  R  512), 
Muhammad Mansha Versus Station House Officer, Police Station 
City, Chiniot, District Jhang and others (P L D 2006 Supreme 
Court 598), Khushi Muhammad Versus Abdul Ghafoor and others, 
Criminal Petition No.907 of 2020 &Civil Petition No.1965 of 2020 
 
8
(2006 S  C  M  R  839), Muhammad Younas and others Versus 
Mst. 
Perveen 
alias 
Mano 
and 
others 
(2007 S C M R  393), 
Muhammad Bashir Versus Station House Officer, Okara Cantt. and 
others (P L D 2007 Supreme Court 539), The State Through 
Prosecutor General, Punjab, Lahore Versus Sultan Ahmed and 
others (P L D 2007 Supreme Court 48), Dr. Ghulam Mustafa 
Versus The State and others (2008 S C M R 76), Muaz Ahmad 
Versus  Haji Muhammad Ramzan and others (2008 S C M R 529), 
Ajmeel Khan Versus Abdur Rahim and others(P L D 2009 Supreme 
Court 102),Muhammad Aslam (Amir Aslam) and others Versus 
District Police Officer, Rawalpindi and others (2009 S C M R 
141),Akhlaq Hussain Kayani Versus Zafar Iqbal Kiyani and others 
(2010 S C M R 1835),Dr. Sher Afgan Khan Niazi Versus Ali S. 
Habib and others (2011 S C M R 1813), Rana Shahid Ahmad 
Khan Versus Tanveer Ahmed and others(2011 S C M R 1937),  
The State through D.G., A.N.F., Rawalpindi Versus Muhammad 
Saleem Khan (2011 S C M R 863), Rizwana Bibi versus The State 
and another (2012 S C M R 94)Director-General, Anti-Corruption 
Establishment, Lahore and others Versus Muhammad Akram Khan 
and others (P L D 2013 SC 401). Civil Petition No.1965 of 2020 
fails. Leave declined. 
 
As a natural corollary, Criminal Petition No.907 of 2020 
stands dismissed.  
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
Islamabad 
30thSeptember,2019 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/-