1986 PLP 369 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 369 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 369 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 369 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 369 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Bakhsh, Advocate Supreme Curt and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 1st July, 1.985.
- Shahzad Jahangir, Advocate Supreme Curt and Khalil Ramdey, Additional A.‑G. for the State.
- 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that although the prosecution case suffered from serious defects inasmuch as the petitioner was an employee of the Central Government (in the Settlement Department) sanction for his prosecution was given by the Provincial Government. It was urged by the learned Additional Advocate‑General that on 9‑2‑1982 when the offence was committed the Settlement Department has already become a Provincial Department by a certain notification and as such the Provincial Government was authorized to accord sanction for prosecution of the petitioner.
- 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted in reply that the notification referred to by the learned Additional Advocate‑General, never came into force and the Settlement Department was still a Central Government Department.
- 5. We adjourned the matter to enable the learned Additional Advocate‑General to place on record the above noted notification but he was unable to do so and required considerable time for research in this matter with the help of the officials of the Settlement Department.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 22‑1‑1985, passed in Cr.A. No. 284 of 1975). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)‑ Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act (XL of 1958), S. 6(5)‑‑Conviction under S. 5(2) of Act (II of 1947)‑‑Sanction for prosecution of an employee of Settlement Department granted by Provincial Government‑‑ Leave granted to consider contention that Settlement Department being still a Central Government Department, sanction was not accorded by appropriate Government. Shahzad Jahangir, Advocate Supreme Curt and Khalil Ramdey, Additional A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑Muhammad Aslam petitioner who was a clerk in the office of Settlement Commissioner, Lahore, was tried and convicted under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to 9 months' R.I. with a fine of Rs.100. His appeal against his sentence and conviction was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that although the prosecution case suffered from serious defects inasmuch as the petitioner was an employee of the Central Government (in the Settlement Department) sanction for his prosecution was given by the Provincial Government. It was urged by the learned Additional Advocate‑General that on 9‑2‑1982 when the offence was committed the Settlement Department has already become a Provincial Department by a certain notification and as such the Provincial Government was authorized to accord sanction for prosecution of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted in reply that the notification referred to by the learned Additional Advocate‑General, never came into force and the Settlement Department was still a Central Government Department.
5. We adjourned the matter to enable the learned Additional Advocate‑General to place on record the above noted notification but he was unable to do so and required considerable time for research in this matter with the help of the officials of the Settlement Department.
6. Under these circumstances we think the proper course is to grant leave to consider the question raised by the petitioner's counsel. Leave is, therefore, granted for the said purpose. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.1,000 (Rupees one thousand only).
7. To be heard on the same record with permission to file additional documents. M.I. Leave granted.