1985 PLP 1054 (SCMR)
Mirza SAFDAR, JANG‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1054 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Nasim Hasan Shah and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | Mirza SAFDAR, JANG‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1054 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1054 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C.J., Nasim Hasan Shah and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1054 (SCMR) (Mirza SAFDAR, JANG‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Muhammad Ishaque Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 20th February, 1985.
- Rao M. Yousaf, Advocate‑on‑Record for A.‑G. Punjab for the State.
- The petitioner next sought leave from this Court and also prayed for interim bail. A learned single Judge of this Court issued notice to the State and Rao M. Yousuf, Advocate‑on‑Record appeared on behalf of the State, and it appears from the order that the State counsel was not able to controvert that the petitioner's trial was illegal. He was, accordingly, granted interim bail and pursuant to that order the main petition was fixed for hearing today.
- In support of the contention that the petitioner was a Central Government Servant, the learned counsel referred us to certain documents particularly the Budget‑Estimates for the year 1985‑86, but it will not be necessary to examine them as Rao M. Yousuf, Advocate‑on -Record appearing for the State conceded that the petitioner was a Central Government Servant. The High Court should have gone into this question as it related to the jurisdiction of the Court even though the plea had not been taken during the trial.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 18‑12‑1984 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Crl. Appeal No.60/1984). ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.161‑‑Charge of corruption‑ Objection as to Central Government's employee's trial and convicted by Special Judge Anti‑Corruption (Provincial)‑‑Objection raised in High Court rejected on ground that such plea was not taken before trial Court‑‑Held: High Court should have gone into this question as it related to jurisdiction of Court even though plea had not been taken during trial‑‑Proceedings quashed‑‑Department at liberty to book accused for retrial in Court of competent jurisdiction. ‑‑ Rao M. Yousaf, Advocate‑on‑Record for A.‑G. Punjab for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.‑‑The appellant was posted as an Auditor in the District Accounts Office, Mianwali. He was booked for trial before the Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Sargodha and Faisalabad Divisions, Sargodha, for having obtained an illegal gratification of Rs.400 from Ghulam Hassan, retired Head Constable, as a reward for finalizing his G.P. Fund case. The sanction for prosecution of the appellant was granted by the Deputy Commissioner and Chairman ACC‑111,. District Mianwali on 24th of May, 1982. He was tried and convicted under section 161, P.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eleven (11) months and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000 or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months by the Special Judge, AntiCorruption, by his judgment, dated 26th of January, 1984. The petitioner went in appeal to the Lahore High Court, Lahore, but did not succeed as it was dismissed. It appears from the judgment of the High Court that the petitioner had raised an objection as to his trial by the Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Sargodha and Faisalabad Divisions, Sargodha, on the ground that being a Central Government servant he could not have been tried by the Special Judge Anti Corruption (Provincial), but the High Court rejected the objection on the short ground that such a plea was not taken before the trial Court. The petitioner next sought leave from this Court and also prayed for interim bail. A learned single Judge of this Court issued notice to the State and Rao M. Yousuf, Advocate‑on‑Record appeared on behalf of the State, and it appears from the order that the State counsel was not able to controvert that the petitioner's trial was illegal. He was, accordingly, granted interim bail and pursuant to that order the main petition was fixed for hearing today. In support of the contention that the petitioner was a Central Government Servant, the learned counsel referred us to certain documents particularly the Budget‑Estimates for the year 1985‑86, but it will not be necessary to examine them as Rao M. Yousuf, Advocate‑on -Record appearing for the State conceded that the petitioner was a Central Government Servant. The High Court should have gone into this question as it related to the jurisdiction of the Court even though the plea had not been taken during the trial. Therefore, we would convert this petition into an appeal and quash the proceedings. This, however, will not absolve the petitioner of his criminal liability. The department concerned is at liberty to book him for re‑trial in a Court of competent jurisdiction after obtaining necessary sanction for his prosecution. M.I Order accordingly