P L D 1962 (W (PLP)

" While trying an offence under this Act a Special Judge may also charge with and try other offences not so triable with which the accused may under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, relating to the joinder of charges be charged at the same trial."

11. The relevant sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure are sections 236 and 237 which I reproduce below for facility of reference: ‑ "

236. If a single act or series of acts 9s of such a nature that it is doubtful which of several offences the facts which can be proved will constitute, the accused may be charged with having committed all or any of such offences, and any number of such charges may be tried at once ; or he may be charged in the alternative with having committed some one of the said offences." "

237. If, in the case mentioned in section 236, the accused is charged with one offence, and it appears in evidence that he committed a different offence for which he might have been charged under the provisions of that section, he may be con victed of the offence which he is shown to have committed, although he was not charged with it." Illustration " A is charged with theft. It appears that he committed the offence of criminal breach of trust, or that of receiving stolen goods. He may be convicted of criminal breach of trust or of receiving stolen goods (as the case may be) though he was not charged with such offence." It is thus clear that appellant Muzaffar Hussain Shah could be legally tried and convicted under section 379, P. P. C. by the Special Judge. In the Dacca ruling [Monoranjan Dey v. The State (P L D 1959 Dacca 616)] cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, there is no reference to subsection (7) of section 5 of the Amending Act XL of 1958. The ruling in my opinion is clearly distinguishable. The Supreme Court ruling in Muhammad Ayub Khuhro's case (P L D 1960 S C (Pak) 237) is equally inapplicable.

12. Taking up the objection against the sanction that was accorded for the prosecution of the appellant I consider it necessary to reproduce the sanction. The sanction order runs as under: ‑ "Whereas, I, Mr. M. S. Hamid, the Executive Engineer, Stores Division, West Pakistan, Electricity Department, Central Zone, Bharat Building, Lahore, am satisfied that Muzaffar Hussain Shah son of Tasaddaq Hussain, Stores Munshi, Electricity Department, Central Zone, Shalimar, r/o Chak No. 275/R. B., P. S. Dutchkot, District Lyallpur, arrested under section 409/379, P. P. C. while employed as Stores Munshi, Electricity Depart ment in the month of June 1958, committed breach of trust in respect of 23 bundles of No. 8‑SWG copper coils to the value of Rs. 50,000 from Electricity Department, West Pakistan, Stores Shalimar, and made over the same to Muhammad Ishaque (co‑accused) by loading it in Truck No. PJL‑

962. The stores were later on recovered from one Muzaffar Ahmed with whom Muhammad Ishaque has deposited them. " Whereas I, Mr. M. S. Hamid, the Executive Engineer, Stores Division, West Pakistan, Electricity Department, Central Zone, Lahore, am competent to dismiss the said Muzaffar Hussain Shah, Stores Munshi and whereas after considering the facts constituting the offence and the other circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the grant of sanction for prosecution is necessary. " Now, therefore, In exercise of the powers conferred by the Government of West Pakistan under clause (a) of subsection (2) of section 11 of the Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1948. " I, Mr. M. S. Hamid, the Executive Engineer, Stores Division, Electricity Department, West Pakistan, Central Zone, Lahore, after giving due consideration to the facts and circum stances of the case do hereby sanction under section 5 (5) read with section of the Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1948, the prosecution of said Muzaffar Hussain Shah, Store Munshi, West Pakistan, Electricity Department, Central Zone, Shalimar, in respect of the offence specified above. M. S. HAMID, Executive Engineer, Store Divn. Elecy. Deptt. Central Zone, Lahore, 2-9-1958."

13. The objection that sanction was accorded under the old Act and as such, is not proper, is equally untenable. The offence was committed in the month of June 1958, Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act XL of 1958 came into force on the 23rd of September 1958. The necessary sanction was accorded on the 2nd of September 1958. In the circumstances, the sanction accorded under the old Act would be perfectly valid. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act X of 1897 provides a complete answer to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. Section 6 runs thus: " Where this Act, or any (Central Act) or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not- (a) . . . . . . . . . (b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder ; or (c) . . . . . . . . . (d) . . . . . . . . . (e) . . . . . . . . . and any such Investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be Imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed."

14. For reasons given by me above, the conviction and the sentence imposed upon the appellant by the Special Judge is upheld. The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is on bail and the District Magistrate will take necessary steps to have Muzaffar Hussain Shah arrested and re-committed to jail to serve out the K.B.A. Appeal dismissed,