P L D 1963 (W (PLP)

Date of hearing : 4th February 1963. This appeal has been filed by Imdad Hussain Naqvi against the order of Mr. M. Yaqub Nur Nabi, Special Judge, Hyderabad, dated the 5th of January 1961, whereby he had convicted him of an offence punishable under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act II of 1947) and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2J years and to pay a fine Rs. 3,000.00 and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 12 months more.

2. Mr. Ghulam Hussain M. Paryani, counsel for the appellant, presses for consideration only ground No. 3 of his appeal, which runs as follows :- "The learned Special Judge, Hyderabad, has failed to bear in mind that he had no authority and jurisdiction to try the appellant, as the Central Government has not appointed him to try and punish offences specified in the Schedule appended to Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947 and under Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act (XIX of 1948), nor his appointment has been notified in the Official Gazette for the purpose of trying of the Central Government employees. This point had been raised, but the learned Special Judge, Hyderabad, seems to have not put light over this point at all least con sidering that the appellant was employee of the Central Government."

3. As given out above, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended before me that the Special Judge, who had convicted him, was not legally competent to do so, as he had not been appointed by the Central Government to try offences specified in the Schedule attached to the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act II of 1947) alleged to have been committed by the employees of the Central Government. According to him, neither he had been so appointed nor any notification in respect of any such appointment had, at any time, been published in the Official Gazette.

4. Syed Murtaza Husain, learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has argued that the learned Special Judge was quite competent to try the appellant for the offence he has been convicted of, as the Sessions Judge had, as a matter of fact, been appointed as Special Judge and notified as such by the Central Government a few years earlier. In this connection, he has referred to the Central Government's Notification No. F. Adm. 15/8/58 (1), dated the 25th November 1958, which was published in the issue of Gazette of Pakistan, Part I, dated the 5th December 1958. It appears from the perusal of this Notification that the Central Government had appointed all Sessions Judges, Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges, in East and West Pakistan, who had for a period of not less than three years exercised, whether continuously or not, the powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, of a Sessions Judge and Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge, to be ex-officio Special Judges within their respective Sessions Divisions for the trial of offences under the said Act.

5. It may further be pointed out here that according to the provisions of section 3 (1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, it is the appropriate Government that is competent to appoint Special Judges to try and punish offences specified in the Schedule. "Appropriate Government", according to section 2 (a) of the said Act means, "in relation to a person serving in con nection with the affairs of the Federation, . . . . . and any other person employed by the Central Government . . . . . . . the Central Government, and in other cases, the Provincial Government concerned."

6. It would thus appear that the learned Judge, who had tried and convicted the appellant in this case, was legally com petent to do so, as the Sessions Judge of Hyderabad, along with A others, had already been notified to be a Special Judge within his jurisdiction. This position has been conceded even by the learned counsel for the appellant.

7. In view of this position, I have been driven to the con clusion that the learned Judge, who had tried the appellant in this case, was legally competent to do so. Even otherwise it appears on the perusal of the record of this case that he was justified in convicting and sentencing him as he has actually done. This being the position, I dismiss this appeal. K.B. A. Appeal dismissed.