1991 PCr (PLP)

Date of hearing: 11th February, 1991. Ghulam Rasool, petitioner, filed a complaint against Ghulam Haider, Girdawar, Aslam Shah, Patwari, and Barkat Ali, a private person, respondents, and four others, in the Court of Magistrate 1st Class, Gujrat. At the time of hearing of the complaint, the Magistrate was of the view that since public servants were involved in the case, so he had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. He accordingly forwarded the complaint to the learned Senior Special Judge, Anti- Corruption, Lahore. On the receipt of the complaint, the learned Senior Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore, sent letter dated 14-12-1982 to the Chairman, Anti-Corruption Committee No.3/Deputy Commissioner, Gujrat, seeking sanction for the prosecution of the accused persons. On 1-6-1983, the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, passed the following order:-- "This complaint under sections 429, 468, 471, 431, 218, 168, P.P.C. was originally filed in the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate, Karyanwala. As respondents Nos. 6 and 7 are the public servants, complaint was then transferred to this Court. Now the Chairman, Anti-Corruption Committee No.I1I has withheld sanction for the prosecution of both the abovementioned public servants vide his Memo. 50/C/Reader dated 14 3-1983. Hence this Court has no jurisdiction to proceed with this complaint in view of the provisions contained in section 6(5) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958. The complaint against respondents Nos. 6 and 7 is, therefore, dismissed. However, the complaint is returned to the Court concerned for taking proceedings against the respondents/accused, who are not the public servants. To appear before the Ilaqa Magistrate concerned on 20-6-1983." Hence this petition.

2. The learned counsel was of the view that since the Chairman, Anti-Corruption Committee had not passed any order refusing or granting the sanction for prosecution requested by the learned Senior Special Judge, Anti- Corruption, therefore, the sanction shall be deemed to have been accorded, so the impugned order could not have been passed. The learned counsel for the State has opposed him.

3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the I parties with care. I find that in his order, dated 1-5-1983, the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption has stated that sanction was withheld by the Chairman, Anti-Corruption Committee on 14-3-1983. There is nothing in evidence to show as to when the letter dated 14-2-1982 (relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner) was received by or in the office of Chairman, Anti-Corruption Committee. The relevant provisions of law may be quoted advantageously-- Proviso (1) to subsection (5) of section 6 of Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958. "Provided that in case where the complaint or report referred to in subsection (4) is not accompanied by such sanction, the Special Judge, shall, immediately on receipt of the complaint or report, address, by letter, the appropriate Government in the matter and if the required sanction is neither received nor refused within sixty days of the receipt of the letter by the appropriate Government, such sanction shall be deemed to have been dub, accorded." This being the position, it cannot be said that the sanction was neither refused nor granted within 60 days after the receipt of letter seeking sanction for the prosecution sent by the learned Senior Special Judge to the Chairman, Anti- Corruption Committee. In this view of the matter, tile submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no force. For what has been said above, the petition is dismissed. SA./G-446/L Revision dismissed.