1993 PCr (PLP)

Muhammad Akram Mughal, Addl. A.-G. for the State. Muhammad Riaz Tabassum for Respondent. The facts culminating into the present reference briefly stated are that a challan under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471, A.P.C. was tiled before the Additional Sub-Judge/Magistrate 1st Class, Mirpur on 11th of April, 1992. The trial Court issued process for the appearance of the accused-respondent who, in response of the same, appeared before the Court on 19th of May, 1992. Numerous dates were given at the request of the accused-respondent for recording his statement under section 242, Cr.P.C. However, on 7th of September, 1992, the trial Court observed that in fact the case was triable by Special Judge Anti-Corruption. The case was, therefore, sent to the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Mirpur for trial in accordance with law who declined to entertain the case, resultantly to have the opinion for this infirmity, the matter was referred to this Court by the learned Magistrate through the present reference.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case with due care and caution.

3. After Second World War, in British India, the provisions relating to bribery and corruption as contained in Penal Code, were felt deficient, as such the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was enforced to check the ingenious devices of bribery and corruption of public servants. However, in Azad Jammu and Kashmir in the year 1950, the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 1950 was enforced. Later on, the same was amended and enforced in 1956 and was called as the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be called the Act). Through this Act, more effective provisions were provided for the prevention of bribery and corruption of public servants. All the cases registered and investigated under the Act, are triable by Special Judge Anti Corruption.

4. In the present case, neither the case was registered nor the challan was submitted under the Act. Admittedly, the challan, was presented under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471, A.P.C. before the Magistrate 1st Class with section 30 powers in whose territorial jurisdiction the alleged offences were committed by the accused-respondent. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the parties have rightly argued that the Special Judge Anti Corruption had no jurisdiction to try the case.

5. With the above observations, it is observed that the learned Additional Sub-Judge/Magistrate 1st Class with Section 30 powers has jurisdiction to try the case. The case is, therefore, remanded to the said Court with the direction' to proceed with the trial of the case in accordance with law. The reference thus f stands answered in the terms indicated above. N.H.Q./139/Sh.C.A. Reference answered.