P L D 1958 Azad J (PLP)
Ch. KALU ETC. Versus AZAD J. & K. GOVT.
| Citation | P L D 1958 Azad J (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Niaz Ahmad, J |
| Parties | Ch. KALU ETC. Versus AZAD J. & K. GOVT. |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1958 Azad J (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1958 Azad J (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Niaz Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1958 Azad J (PLP) (Ch. KALU ETC. Versus AZAD J. & K. GOVT.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Bashi, Ahmad Khokhar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Muhammad Sharif, Government Advocate for Government.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Bashi, Ahmad Khokhar for Petitioner. Muhammad Sharif, Government Advocate for Government. NIAZ AHMAD, J.--‑ Petitioner Kalu is a resident of village Dhamyal District Mirpur. He is being prosecuted alongwith several other co‑accused for offences alleged to have been committed by them in Jhelum in Pakistan. Kalu and the other co‑accused applied to this Court for quashing criminal proceedings against them on the ground that the Courts in Azad Kashmir had no jurisdiction to try the petitioners for these offences This application was rejected as during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, the Azad Kashmir Government sanctioned the prosecution of the petitioner and the other co‑accused for offences alleged to have been committed by them in Jhelum. The petitioner has now challenged the jurisdiction of the trial Magistrate on the ground that sanction of the Azad Kashmir Government was not sufficient and that sanction for prosecution should have been obtained from the Government of West Pakistan. It is further urged that the Council order sanctioning prosecu tion of the petitioner is not in conformity with the provisions of section 188, Criminal P. C. Two points, therefore, arise for consideration ; first whether the sanction is in conformity with the provisions of section 188, Criminal P. C., and secondly whether the sanction of the Azad Kashmir Government would be sufficient to enable the Magistrate at Mirpur to try the accused for offences com mitted in Pakistan. The first objection appears to have been raised on account f the ignorance of the rules and practice observed in the matters of issuing Council orders. Almost all Council orders are issued under the signatures of the Deputy Secretary General and under para. 1.7 of the Rules of Business he is authorised to do so. There is therefore no manner of doubt that the Council has sanctioned the prosecution of the peti tioner and this sanction has been properly conveyed by the Government. There is also no force in the second objection Section 188 provides that an offender can be dealt with in respect of an offence committed outside the Azad Kashmir Territory as if it was committed at any place inside Azad Kashmir provided that the sanction of the Provincial Govern ment is obtained for the trial of the offender. According to section 4 of the Azad Kashmir Interpretation of Laws Ac 1954, the expression "Provincial Government" occurring in any law adapted in Azad Kashmir shall be construed to refer to the Azad Kashmir Government. The expression "Provin cial Government" occurring in section 188 of the Criminal P. C., shall be read as the Azad Kashmir Government. It is, therefore, clear that sanction of this Government is sufficient and it gives extra‑territorial jurisdiction to its Court. There is further no danger of the petitioner being tried twice for the same offence. A judgment of acquittal or conviction passed by the trial Court will be a bar to proceedings being started against him in Jhelum, and if a demand for his extradition is made, it will be refused by the Azad Kashmir Government. Both the objections challenging the jurisdiction of the Magis trate fail and the petition is rejected. K. M. A. Petition rejected.