P L D 1984 Karachi 126 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD JAFFAR‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1984 Karachi 126 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Ss. 6(5) & 10‑Pakistan Criminal ,Law Amendment Rules, 1962, r. 2‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1890, S. 410‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 409‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2) Sanction for prosecution of accused accorded by authority not compe tent to sanction at relevant time‑Conviction and sentence set aside. Sanction for prosecution. |
| Bench Members | Z. C. Valiani, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD JAFFAR‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1984 Karachi 126 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1984 Karachi 126 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Ss. 6(5) & 10‑Pakistan Criminal ,Law Amendment Rules, 1962, r. 2‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1890, S. 410‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 409‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2) Sanction for prosecution of accused accorded by authority not compe tent to sanction at relevant time‑Conviction and sentence set aside. Sanction for prosecution. bench comprising: Z. C. Valiani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1984 Karachi 126 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD JAFFAR‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nooruddin Sarki for Appellant.
- Date of hearing : 2nd November, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act (XL of 1958)‑ Ss. 6(5) & 10‑Pakistan Criminal ,Law Amendment Rules, 1962, r. 2‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1890, S. 410‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 409‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2) Sanction for prosecution of accused accorded by authority not compe tent to sanction at relevant time‑Conviction and sentence set aside. [Sanction for prosecution]. N. K. Jatol for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Appellant above-named, being aggrieved by judgment, dated 14-10-1979, of the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Hyderabad, in Special Case No. 48 of 1979, by which appellant has been convicted under section 409, P. P. C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947, and sentenced to suffer imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay fine of Rs. 400 or in default to suffer R. 1. for 3 months, has filed the above appeal, on the following facts and grounds In nutshell prosecution case is, that appellant wants a compounder in Dispensary Bobi, District Sanghar. On 3-9-1975, he was entrusted with pay of the staff by way of cheque for Rs. 658.97, including his pay Rs.
260. He got the cheque encashed on the same day, but did not disburse the amount of Rs. 398.97 to the staff immediately and he kept away the amount with himself. He disbursed the amount as well on 19-10-1.975, after a month's wait. The matter was referred to Anti-Corruption Establishment. After usual investigation the appellant was sent up for trial before trial Court. Learned trial Court taking into consideration the evidence adduced before it convicted and sentenced the appellant above-named as hereinbefore mentioned and consequently appellant has filed the above appeal, on the grounds mentioned in the memo. of appeal. Learned Advocate for the appellant in support of the above appeal submitted, that sanction granted for the prosecution of the appellant by the Chairman Anti-Corruption Committee was bad in law, as the same was not given by the competent authority, as envisaged by section 6(5) read with rule 2 of Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Rules, 1962 and on this ground alone, the conviction of the appellant cannot legally be maintained. Mr. N. K. Jatoi learned counsel appearing for the State conceded to above legal position and consequently he stated that he was not supporting the impugned judgment. I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and have gone through the R & P of the learned trial Court as well as impugned judgment. It is admitted position that on 3-9-1975, Chairman of Anti-Corruption Committee was not competent authority to sanction the prosecution of the appellant under subsection (5) of section 6 of Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958. It was only by Notification No. F E & A C-150/26/78, , dated 2-5-1978, issued by Government of Sind, that Chairman Anti-Corruption Committee was authorised to give such sanction, and consequently, prosecution of the appellant on the basis of sanction accorded by Chairman, Anti-Corruption Committee was illegal and without jurisdiction. Therefore, I allow the above appeal and set aside the conviction and sentences awarded to the appellant by impugned judgment on this ground I alone. However, State will be at liberty to file fresh proceedings against their appellant, after obtaining proper and legal sanction, if it is so advised. Appeal allowed.