P L D 1954 Sind 278 (PLP)
THE CROWN‑Appellant Versus ALI GOHAR‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1954 Sind 278 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | THE CROWN‑Appellant Versus ALI GOHAR‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1954 Sind 278 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1954 Sind 278 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1954 Sind 278 (PLP) (THE CROWN‑Appellant Versus ALI GOHAR‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Tufail Abdur Rehman, Assistant to the Advocate‑General for the Crown.
- A. H. Qureshi, for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Judgment & Decree
AGHA C. J * * * * * * VELLANI J.‑I think the distinction between "illegality" and "irregularity", which the Privy Council has found to be a matter of degree rather than of kind in A I R (1947) P C 67, 70, is insufficient to support the conclusion. I have arrived at. The object of providing in section 4 of Sind Act 24 of 1950 that an Inspector of Anti‑Corruption Police Establish ment shall exercise the powers of the Officer‑in‑charge of a Police Station is to create a statutory safeguard for the accused, so that the offence may be investigated by an office of considerable rank and reliability. The investigation of the case by an officer of inferior rank is clearly a breach of this statutory safegaurd. Sind Act 24 of 1950 confers power as of Sessions Judge on the Special judge appointed under it. thus rendering the accused open to a sentence of years rigorous imprisonment for some of the offences mentioned in the schedule to the Act. This then is one reason for providing the statutory safeguard in favour of the accused. In my view the legislature has provided this as a material safeguard, breach of which vitiates the trial had upon it. Under section 6 of Sind Act 24 of 1950, the only jurisdiction the Court of the Special Judge has is in cases directly sent up to it for trial by the Anti‑corruption Police Establishment, and under the provise to section 3 and section 4 of that Act, only an Inspector of this establishment may exercise powers of the Officer‑in‑charge of a Police Station, and investigate the case. For these reasons, I concur that the acquittal appeals fails. A. H. Appeal dismissed.