1968 P Cr (PLP)
DR. ABDUL FATEH‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent
| Citation | 1968 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court |
| Bench Members | Fazle‑Akbar and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ |
| Parties | DR. ABDUL FATEH‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court bench comprising: Fazle‑Akbar and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 P Cr (PLP) (DR. ABDUL FATEH‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Hayat Junejo, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Hyder Bakhsh Sheikh, Attorney for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 6 (S)‑Appropriate authority refusing sanction for prosecution and instead accepting resignation of accused‑Special Judge on refusal of sanction discharging accused‑High Court on revision against discharge ordering retrial‑Contention that cognisance of offence having been taken long before resignation of accused, sanction for his prosecution was necessary and as such High Court was not justified in ordering retrial‑Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5 (2).
Judgment & Decree
FAZLE‑AKBAR, J.‑The petitioner Dr. Abdul Fateh who, at the relevant time, was working as Assistant Health Officer (Veterinary), Municipal Committee, Hyderabad, is being prosecuted under section 161, P. P. C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, upon the allegation that on 25‑6‑1965, he accepted an illegal gratification of Rs. 100 from one, Hakim Ali, Secretary of the Tonga Drivers' Union, Hyderabad. On 4‑10‑65, the Special Judge, Hyderabad, after registering the case issued summons to the accused. On 11‑10‑65, the Special Judge wrote to the Municipal Committee, Hyderabad, asking for necessary sanction for the prosecution of the accused as required under section 6(5) of the Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958. The Municipal Committee by their resolution No. 847 dated 21‑10‑65 refused to grant the required sanction and also accepted the resignation of the said Assistant Health Officer. On receipt of the said resolution of the Municipal Committee, the Special Judge discharged the accused on 11‑11‑
65. The State then moved a revision in the High Court against the order of the Special Judge. A learned Single Judge of that Court has ordered retrial of the accused. He now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court against that order. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended inter alia (i) that the Court had taken cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner long before his resignation and as such a sanction for his prosecution was necessary under the law, and (ii) that the learned Single Judge was wrong in holding `that the prosecution only can be said to start when the rubkari of substance, of the accusation is read to the accused'. In our opinion, these points, which are of general public importance, require consideration. We accordingly grant leave to appeal as prayed. Further proceedings before the Special Judge are stayed pending disposal of this appeal. Petition accepted.