Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD KHALID WASEEM VS Respondent: GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary Co-operative, Punjab Honorable Justice Muhammad Amjad Rafiq Imran Raza Chadhar , Imran Abbas Sahi
CITATION: 2026 PLD 580 CASE: 2026L51 TITLE: MUHAMMAD KHALID WASEEM VS GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary Co-operative, Punjab Honorable Justice Muhammad Amjad Rafiq Imran Raza Chadhar , Imran Abbas Sahi COURT: LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE YEAR: 2026 JOURNAL: PLD ============================================================
305 P L D 2026 Lahore 580 Before Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, J MUHAMMAD KHALID WASEEM ---Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary Co-operative, Punjab and others ---Respondents Writ Petition No. 72110 of 2024, decided on 14th January, 2025. (a) Co-operative Societies Act (VII of 1925)--- ----Ss. 60, 62 & 62A---Offences---Penalties and punishments---Distinction---Offences under Cooperative Societies Act,1925 are either liable to penalty or punishable ---Both the terms differ with each other in the sense that power of imposing penalty has been given to the Registrar or person authorized by him under Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 whereas power to punish lies with the Court---Offences under S.60(a) to (h) of Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 are liable to penalty only, whereas offences under Ss.60(i), 62 and 62A of Cooperative Societies Act (VII of 1925) are punishable . (b) Co-operative Societies Act (VII of 1925)--- ----Ss. 43, 44, 44A, 44B, 60& 65B---National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), S. 4 (4)(d) [as inserted by National Accountability (Amendment) Act (XXIV of 2023), dated 29-05-2023]---Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act (XL of 1958), Ss. 4 & 5---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 29---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Phrase for exercise of jurisdiction in accordance with the applicable law ---Scope---Trial of offence---Forum---Petitioner / accused was facing trial before Accountability Court when the matter was transferred to Registrar Cooperative Societies for further proceedings directed to be tried by Special Judge Anti-Corruption Court---Validity---Offences under Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 can either be tried by High Court or by any Court mentioned in Second Schedule of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898---Maximum sentence for offences under Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 is five years which according to Second Schedule of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, under the head, Offences Against Other Laws is triable by Magistrate First Class---For offences under Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 Registrar was to file complaint before Court of Magistrate concerned---Anti-Corruption Establishment had no authority to inquire or investigate offences under Cooperative Societies Act, 1925---However, if any person was aggrieved of any act of members of Management Committee or Officers of society which was an offence under Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 or under any other law relating to public servants, provided such offences were also included in the Schedule attached to Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958, such person could file a direct complaint before Special Judge appointed under Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958, and the Special Judge, if he considered it appropriate, could direct for investigation by any police officer in whose jurisdiction the offence was wholly or partly committed, as mentioned in S.5(6) of Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1958---Registrar had no authority to send the case to Anti-Corruption Establishment for indirect transmission to the Court of Special Judge, rather pursuant to direction of Accountability Court, he was to initiate process for imposing penalty upon petitioners or trial of offences punishable under Cooperative Societies Act, 1925---Anti-Corruption Establishment was also not authorized to initiate inquiry into the matter on the Reference of Registrar---High Court set aside Reference sent by Registrar, Cooperative Societies, to Anti-Corruption Establishment---High Court directed the Registrar to comply with order of Accountability Court for initiation of proceedings under the law---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly. Mian Khan v. Ghulam Mustafa and 6 others 1996 SCMR 654 rel. Imran Raza Chadhar for Petitioner. Imran Abbas Sahi, Assistant Advocate-General and Muhammad Nawaz Shahid, Director Legal Anti-Corruption Establishment Punjab, Lahore for Respondents. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 and 4. ORDER MUHAMMAD AMJAD RAFIQ, J.--- This writ petition assails Reference No. RCS/H/ACE/ 2023/1601, dated 06.11.2024, sent by office of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Lahore (respondent No.2) to the Director General, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Punjab, Lahore (respondent No.3), whereby a NAB reference transferred by the NAB Court to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab for further proceedings, was directed to be tried by the Senior Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that pursuant to National Accountability (Amendment) Act, 2022 and 2nd Amendment Act, 2022 read with National Accountability (Amendment) Act 2023, after the pronouncement of judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Petition No.2/23, dated 06.09.2024, NAB Court passed an order, dated 09.10.2024, whereby trial pending before such Court was referred to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Lahore for further proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per amended law it was the prerogative of the NAB Court to decide as to where the matter should be referred and in this respect the text of law uses words refer it to the appropriate Court/Tribunal/ Forum/Agency/ Authority and in this case NAB Court has not deemed it proper to send the case to Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Court rather opted to refer the same to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Lahore, therefore, the Registrar was bound to obey such order for trial of accused/petitioner but against the spirit of order, dated 09.10.2024, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab Lahore has referred the case to Anti-Corruption Establishment through the impugned Reference. 3. Para-wise comments were sought from the Director General, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Punjab, Lahore, who stated that office is inquiring into the matter which is within their domain because members of cooperative society are public servants as per section 65B of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 but he could not submit plausible justification that when the matter was already in trial before NAB Court and after its valid transfer to Registrar Cooperative Societies by NAB Court, how Registrar Cooperative Societies without first challenging the order of NAB Court can send the reference to Anti-Corruption Establishment, and how the Establishment can accept such reference while assuming jurisdiction and that too from the stage of inquiry. 4. Learned Assistant Advocate General, however, prayed for dismissal of this writ petition on the ground that matter pending before D.G. Anti-Corruption is yet to reach out any decision on his behalf, therefore, writ petition is pre-mature, and in this respect referred the order of another Bench of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 79528/2024 on 19.12.2024 to the following effect; 2. Analysis of reasons extended and review of findings recorded, at this stage, would prejudice the proceedings before respondent No. 2. Whether cognizance could be taken or not? And whether case is proceedable or not; such questions can be raised for consideration of Establishment, when circumstances so warrant. I find no reason to interfere in the matter, mid-way. Stance of learned Assistant Advocate General (AAG) is outrightly rejected on the ground that in that case matter was directly referred by NAB Court to the Anti-Corruption Establishment, which situation is not similar to the present case. 5. After hearing the proponents stances in the light of relevant law, this Court gets the attention towards such an important issue which needs some clarification. 6. On receiving a complaint, Registrar Cooperative Societies can inquire the matter for appropriate actions under the law or for prosecution of offences. The course of complaint is mentioned in section 43 of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925 (herein after be referred as CSA 1925) relevant part of which is reproduced for reference; 43. Inquiry by Registrar. (1) The Registrar may of his own motion by himself or by a person duly authorised by him in writing in this behalf hold an inquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of a society . (2) The Registrar shall hold such an inquiry as is contemplated in subsection (1) of this section (a) on the requisition of a society, duly authorised by rules made in this behalf to make such requisition, in respect of one of its members, such member being itself a society, (b) on the application of a majority of the Committee of the society, (c) on the application of 1/3rd of the members of the society. During such inquiry, Registrar while exercising powers under sections 44, 44A, 44B can inspect books and properties of the society and recommend other actions including removal of officers of society under section 44C, appropriate directions to Society under section 44D or taking of special measures under section 44E like the followings; (i) enter and search any premises and seize books of account or other documents or records; (ii) take in his custody all moneys, cash, securities, title deeds, properties, whether movable or immovable, belonging to such society including those being held on behalf of or in the name of any officer, employee or agent of the society, beneficiary or transferee of such society or other person or their dependents. (iii) direct any bank, financial institution or person to freeze all moneys deposited with it or him on behalf of the society or of any officer, employee, agent, beneficiary or transferee of such society; (iv) take all necessary steps and measures for identifying assets and property of the society and for realization, protection and preservation thereof; (v) restrain any society or officer, employee, agent, beneficiary or transferee of such society or any person deriving or claiming title through any of them from alienating, transferring, selling, assigning, disposing of or parting with possession of any property, movable or immovable, or deriving any benefit, rent or income therefrom; (vi) make such order for realization, protection and preservation of deposits of money and other assets and property of the society as he may deem fit. (2) The order passed under subsection (1) may at any time be withdrawn and shall not remain in force for more than one year. 7. Such an exhaustive mechanism, which authorizes the Registrar to take down the entire society and protect and preserve the rights of claimants, is enough to achieve the necessary objectives, the Grievance Redressal provision in section 44F acts as a safeguard against the Registrar's powers that can be used arbitrarily. Even the Registrar has the power to order society to wind up, and then appointment of liquidator as authorized under section 47 to 53 of CSA 1925. A solution through arbitration pursuant to section 54 and onward is also in place in the CSA 1925. However, to appreciate the question involved in this case let s see what offences are listed under CSA 1925, which are as under; 60. Offences. It shall be an offence under this Act if (a) Default by a society, officer or member
a society with a working capital of Rs.50,000 or more or an officer or member thereof fails without any reasonable excuse to give any notice, send any return or document, do or allow to be done anything which the society, officer or member is by this Act or rules made thereunder required to give, send, do or allow to be done; or (b) Wilful neglect or default by a society, etc. a society or an officer or a member thereof wilfully neglects or refuses to do any act or to furnish any information required for the purposes of this Act or rules made thereunder by the Registrar or other person duly authorised by him in writing in this behalf; or (c) Wilful furnishing of false information
a society or an officer or member thereof wilfully makes a false return or furnishes false information; or (d) Disobedience of summons, requisition, or order any person wilfully or without any reasonable excuse disobeys any summons, requisition or lawful written order issued under the provisions of this Act or rules made thereunder] or does not furnish any information lawfully required from him by a person authorized to do so under the provisions of this Act or rules made thereunder; or (e) Indulgence in fraudulent activities
a member of a society indulges in fraudulent or corrupt activities concerning the management or business of the society, or indulges in any illegal or corrupt practices, as defined in the Punjab Local Government Act, 2019 (XIII of 2019), in the conduct of elections of the managing committee of the society; or (f) Performing acts without approval
an officer, an employee of a society or a member of the managing committee of the society performs any act without prior approval of the Registrar or of the general body of the society where such prior approval is required by law; or (g) Making a false report or refusing to do an act an officer or a member of the internal audit committee of a society refuses or neglects to do an act which he is required by law to do or makes a false report; or (h) Violation of the master plan a member of the managing committee of a cooperative housing society commits any violation or breach of an approved master plan; or (i) Failure to provide information- a member, employee, director, officer or secretary of the society does not furnish information under clauses (viii), (ix), (x) and (xi) of section 5, sections 20-A, 21-A, or does not comply with subsection (1) of section 49-A or section 34-A of this Act. 61. Penalty for offences not otherwise provided for. (1) Every officer or member of a society or other person guilty of an offence under this Act for which no penalty is expressly provided in this Act shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding rupees one million. (1a) Every society guilty of an offence under this Act for which no penalty is expressly provided shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding rupees ten million. (2) The Registrar or a person duly authorized by him shall be empowered to impose such penalty after affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned. 61-A Penalty for offences under clause (i) of section 60.− Any member, employee, director, officer or secretary of the society found guilty under clause (i) of section 60 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine up to rupees two million or with both, and if any society is found guilty under clause (i) of section 60, it shall be liable to a fine up to a maximum of one fourth of its working capital. 62. Prohibition of the use of the word co-operative . (1) No person other than a registered society shall without the sanction of the Government, trade or carry on business under any name or title of which the word co-operative or its vernacular equivalent forms part: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to the use by any person or his successor in interest of any name or title under which he traded or carried on business at the date on which this Act comes into operation. (2) Whoever contravenes the provisions of this section shall be punishable with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees and in the case of a continuing offence with further fine of five hundred rupees for each day on which the offence is continued after conviction therefor. 62.A. Penalty. (1) Whoever contravenes the provisions of subsection (3) of section 44-C or any direction given by the Registrar under section 44-D shall be guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both. (2) Whoever contravenes an order passed under section 44-E shall be guilty of an offence which shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years but which shall not be less than six months and shall also be liable to be punished with fine]. 8. Above penal provisions reflect that maximum punishment is prescribed as five years imprisonment with fine for offence under clause (i) of section 60, as ordained under section 61A of CSA 1925 which is reproduced as under; (i) Failure to provide information- a member, employee, director, officer or secretary of the society does not furnish information under clauses (viii), (ix), (x) and (xi) of section 5, sections 20-A, 21-A, or does not comply with subsection (1) of section 49-A or section 34-A of this Act. As per section 62A, penalty to imprisonment of six months with fine for contravening the provisions of subsection 3 of section 44C or violation of any direction given by the Registrar under section 44-D; imprisonment to three years (not less than six months) with fine on contravention of order passed under section 44E, have been prescribed in CSA 1925. 9. No punishment or penalty has been prescribed for offences under Clauses (a) to (h) of section 60 of CSA 1925, and it is mentioned in section 61 above that every officer or member of a society
or other person guilty of an offence under this Act for which no penalty is expressly provided in this Act shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding rupees one million . Similarly, every society guilty of an offence under this Act for which no penalty is expressly provided shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding rupees ten million . Section 61, subsection (2) says that the Registrar or a person duly authorized by him shall be empowered to impose such penalty after affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned. As per section 62, subsection (2), whoever contravenes the provisions of such section, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees and in the case of a continuing offence with further fine of five hundred rupees for each day on which the offence is continued after conviction therefor. 10. Analysis of above penal provisions reflects that the offences under above Act are either liable to penalty or punishable ; the two terms differ to each other in the sense that power of imposing penalty has been given to the Registrar or person authorized by him under the Act, whereas power to punish lies with the Court. Offences under section 60, clauses (a) to (h) are liable to penalty only, whereas offences under sections 60, Clause (i), as well as under sections 62 and 62A are punishable . As per section 63 of CSA 1925, cognizance of all offences punishable under the Act is subject to the complaint in writing to be made by the Registrar or by a person duly authorized by him for the purpose. However, for offences under section 62A, subsection (2), cognizance was also kept open otherwise than on complaint by Registrar. Section 63 is as under; 63. Cognizance of offences. No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a complaint in writing made by the Registrar or by a person duly authorised, for the purpose, by him: Provided that cognizance of an offence under subsection (2) of section 62-A may be taken even otherwise than on such complaint. Offences under section 62A, subsection (2) relate to contravention of order passed under section 44E, as referred above. From the above discussion, it is clear that offences under section 60, Clauses (a) to (h) of CSA 1925 cannot be sent for prosecution before the Court, rather Registrar or the person authorized by him is empowered to impose such penalty after affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned, whereas for rest of the offences, Registrar or any person on his behalf shall file a direct complaint before the Court. 11. Present case was of corrupt practices; petitioner Khalid Waseem being president of Model Town House Building Cooperative Housing Society, Sialkot and others were under the allegation for allotting plots to his relatives under his stamp and signature illegally, unlawfully and without approval of Management Committee, it was being tried under NAB Ordinance 1999 but was sent back to the Registrar for action under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925; such offence apparently falls under section 60 clause (e); i.e., which is as under; Indulgence in fraudulent activities
a member of a society indulges in fraudulent or corrupt activities concerning the management or business of the society, or indulges in any illegal or corrupt practices, as defined in the Punjab Local Government Act, 2019 (XIII of 2019), in the conduct of elections of the managing committee of the society. Such clause was inserted by the Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Act 2006 (VI of 2006), and is liable to fine only as mentioned in section 61 of the CSA 1925. Thus, in such offence no complaint is required to be filed before the Court. However, Registrar can hold inquiry under section 43 of said Act on the complaint mentioned therein, and in such situation special measures under section 44E of CSA 1925 can also be taken against the society, which include taking in to custody all moneys, cash, securities, title deeds, properties, whether movable or immovable, belonging to such society; direct any bank, financial institution or person to freeze all moneys deposited with it or him on behalf of the society; take measures for identifying assets and property of the society and for realization, protection and preservation thereof. 12. Now the most crucial question that which Court would have jurisdiction in the matters where Registrar shall file the complaint. Section 65B of CSA 1925 says that officers of society are public servants as defined under section 21 of Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Officers include Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer, member of committee or other person empowered under the rules or under the by-laws of a society to give directions in regard to the business of such society, as defined under section 3(d) of the Act. It was contended by Director General Anti-Corruption Establishment that members and officers of society are public servants, therefore, for trial of offences punishable under CSA 1925, matter may be sent to Special Judge appointed under Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958 through Anti-Corruption Establishment. In order to appreciate such contention, I have focused on the definition of public servant defined in section 21 of Pakistan Penal Code 1860 which counts eleven broad categories including numerous other categories such as every officer in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty . Explanation 1 of such section says persons falling under any of the above descriptions are public servants, whether appointed by the Government or not . This section clearly creates two broad categories of public servants; one who are on pay role of the Government means government servant or government employee, and others who have simply been assigned a public duty. Since application of Pakistan Penal Code 1860, both categories of public servants were evenly prosecuted for offences under the said Act before the ordinary Courts. However, for official delinquency, public servants who were in pay of the government were also held responsible through departmental inquiries on disciplinary matters and in this respect Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1935 were framed under Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935 for imposing penalties like i) Censure ii) Withholding of increments or promotion including stoppage at the Efficiency bar. iii) Reduction to a lower post or time scale or to a lower stage in a time scale. iv) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government by negligence or breach of orders. v) Suspension. vi) Removal from Services. vii) Dismissal from Services. Likewise, before that Police Rules 1934 (Chapter-XVI) were also to the same effect for police officers. In disciplinary rules misconduct was introduced as a major delinquency. Later for graver charges, criminal misconduct was introduced through the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 which also regulated the offences under sections 161 to 165A of Pakistan Penal Code 1860 while declaring them as cognizable. Section-2 of said Act says that it extends to the whole of Pakistan and applies to all citizens of Pakistan and persons in the service of Government wherever they may be , and in rest of the sections, the Act uses the word Public Servant the connotation in the service of Government indicates only that category who are on the pay role of the government and subject to transfer anywhere because the word wherever has also been used. Despite this special enactment public…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.