1977 PLP 482 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ABBAS‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1977 PLP 482 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑Art. 188‑‑Review‑Sanction to prosecute‑Contrary view appearing to have been taken in (no case as against others on question of applicability of bar to prosecution due to lack of sanction for prosecution and leave to appeal granted in some cases to consider such question‑Some conflict existing on question, review petition asked to be put up for hearing alongwith such other appeals and sentence being a short one for only nine months, petitioner released on bail in meantime‑‑‑Penal Code XLV of 1860), S. 161 read with Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1347), S. 5(2).‑Review‑Sanction for prosecution. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ABBAS‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 PLP 482 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 PLP 482 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑Art. 188‑‑Review‑Sanction to prosecute‑Contrary view appearing to have been taken in (no case as against others on question of applicability of bar to prosecution due to lack of sanction for prosecution and leave to appeal granted in some cases to consider such question‑Some conflict existing on question, review petition asked to be put up for hearing alongwith such other appeals and sentence being a short one for only nine months, petitioner released on bail in meantime‑‑‑Penal Code XLV of 1860), S. 161 read with Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1347), S. 5(2).‑Review‑Sanction for prosecution. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 PLP 482 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ABBAS‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Z. U. Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ali Akbar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 13th August 1975.
Headnotes / Summary
(On review from the judgment of this Court dated 25‑1‑1974, in Criminal Petition No. K‑81 of 1973). ‑‑‑Art. 188‑‑Review‑Sanction to prosecute‑Contrary view appearing to have been taken in (no case as against others on question of applicability of bar to prosecution due to lack of sanction for prosecution and leave to appeal granted in some cases to consider such question‑Some conflict existing on question, review petition asked to be put up for hearing alongwith such other appeals and sentence being a short one for only nine months, petitioner released on bail in meantime‑‑‑Penal Code XLV of 1860), S. 161 read with Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1347), S. 5(2).‑[Review‑Sanction for prosecution]. Nazir Hussain Shah v. State P L D 1965 S C 138 1 Ataur Rehman v. State P L D 1967 S C 2s and Abdul Fateh v. State 1972 S C M R 239 ref. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for the State. Date of hearing : 13th August 1975. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑This is a petition for the review of an order of this Court passed on the 25th January 1974, dismissing a petition for special leave to appeal, being Criminal Petition No. K‑81 of 1913. One of the questions which arose for consideration in this case was as to whether the Special Judge‑cum‑Enquiry officer, Anti‑Corruption, could take cognizance of the case against the petitioner under section 161, P. P. C, read with subsection (2) of section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, without a proper sanction, This Court, relying on a Full Court decision in the case of Nazir Hussain Shah v. State (PLD1965SC138) took the view that the bar to the prosecution contained in subsection (5) of sect ion 6 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act applied only to those persons who were public servants at the time when the Court took cognizance of the offence and not to persons who) only at the time of the alleged commission of the offence, were such public servants. This view was reiterated also in the case of Ataur Rehman v. State (PLD1967SC23) bait a contrary view, it appears, has since been taken in Abdul Fateh v. State (1972SCMR239) and again, it appears that this Court has granted leave to appeal, in Criminal Petitions Nos. K‑32 and K‑35 of 1973 to reconsider this veer' question. Review is, accordingly, sought for reconsideration of the order of this Court dated the 25th January 1974. It appears to us that since there is some conflict in this Court on this question, the appropriate order to make at this stage would be to direct that this review petition should also come up for hearing along with the appeals arising out of Criminal Petitions Nos. K‑32 and K‑35 of 1963. In the meantime, since the sentence is a short sentence of only 9 months the petitioner should be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 5,000 and on surety of Ole like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Karachi. Order accordingly.