P I (PLP)
RASHID AHMAD‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | P I (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Single Bench |
| Parties | RASHID AHMAD‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P I (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P I (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Honorable Judges.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P I (PLP) (RASHID AHMAD‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Muhammad Shafi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
- Dates of hearing : 24th, 25th November 1971 and 14th January 1972.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the former High Court of West Pakistan. Lahore, dated the 20th March 1968, in Criminal Appeal No. 777 of 1964). (a) Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act (XG of 1958), Ss. 6(5) & 2(a)‑Sanction for prosecution‑Obtaining sanction of appropriate authority : mandatory and condition precedent .for prosecution‑Proper sanction not obtained ‑ All proceedings rendered illegal and without jurisdiction‑Employee working under Central Government‑Sanction accorded by Officer under notifica tion issued by Provincial Government‑Sanction, not valid ‑Entire proceedings rendered illegal and without jurisdiction. A person working as cashier in the office of the Cantonment Board, Wah was prosecuted for defalcation of accounts. The sanction for his prosecution was accorded by the Executive Officer. Wah Cantonment who was empowered to do so by a notification issued by the Provincial Government. The Special Judge took cognizance of the case and convicted him. Held: If a mandatory condition for the exercise of a jurisdic tion before a Court, tribunal or authority is not fulfilled, then the entire proceedings which follow become illegal and suffer from want of ,jurisdiction. Any order pissed in continuation of these proceedings in appeal or revision equally suffer from illegality and are without jurisdiction. It is quite clear that the sanction accorded by the Executive Officer, Wah Cantonment was without jurisdiction. Wah Cantonment is under the Central Government and under section 6(5) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, the sanction could only be issued by the Central Government or by any officer authorised by it. Under section 2(a) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, the appropriate Government is the Central Government and the sanction in this case should have been issued by the Central Government. In the absence of any such sanction the trial of the accused was illegal and without jurisdiction. The Special Judge could not take cognizance of the case without the proper sanction. Chittaranjan Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Staff' Union P L D 1971 S C 197 ; Mansab Ali v. Amir and 3 others P L D 1971 S C 124 ; Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka v. The King P L D 1948 P C 11 ;and Chief Kwame Asante v. Chief Kwame Tawia P L D 1949 C 45ref. (b) Jurisdiction‑‑Question relating to, could be raised pt at any stage of the proceeding. If a mandatory condition for the exercise of a jurisdiction before a Court, tribunal or authority is not fulfilled, then the entire proceedings which follow become illegal and suffer from want of jurisdiction. Any orders passed in continuation of these proceedings in appeal or revision equally suffer from illegality and are without jurisdiction. Abdul Rashid v. The Crown P L D 1951 F C 2 ; S. M. K Alvi v. The Crown P L D 1953 F C 189 ; Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka v. The King P L D 1948 P C 11 ; Nfrode Chandra Biswas and others v. The State P L D 1958 Dacca 90 ; F. D. Costa v. The State P L D 1959 Dacca 744 ; Abdul Khaliq v. The State P L D 1963 Kar. 26 : Qazi Mushtaq Ahmad v. Muhammad Ramzan and another 1970 P Cr. L J 1181 and Abdul Khaliq v. The State 1970 P Cr. L J 1189 considered. Mansab Ali v. Amir and 3 others P L D 1971 S C 124 ref. (c) Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act (XL of 1958), S. 6(5)‑Sanction for prosecution‑Sanction accorded by person not empowered to do so on date when cognizance of case taken Subsequent notification conferring power of sanction ‑Of no avail. (d) Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act (XL of 1958), S. 6(5)‑Sanction for prosecution‑R dismissed from service on 28‑1‑61 whereas cognizance of case taken by Special Judge on 29‑9‑61‑R's appeal against dismissal pending during period ; Held, R deemed to be in service pending disposal of his appeal and sanction for prosecution necessary. Nazir Hussain Shah v. The State P L D 1965 S C 139 and Ataur Rahman v. The State P L D 1967 S C 23 held not applicable. Maqbool Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record (on 24‑11‑71 and 25‑11‑71) and Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record (on 14‑1‑72) for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-The petitioner is one of the accused persons for the murder of Jan Muhammad. A cross-case arising out of the same occurrence was registered against the complainant party for the murder of one Yasin, who belonged to the petitioner's party. The occurrence arose over a land dispute. The petitioner and his co-accused had applied to the High Court for their bail after it was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. A learned Single Judge in the High Court has granted bail to the co-accused of the petitioner but has rejected his prayer for bail. It was urged before the learned Single Judge in the High Court that one of the alleged eye-witnesses named Manzur, who lodged the F. I. R. against the accused and who is also one of the accused in the cross case, had stated in his statement recorded by the committing Magistrate that the petitioner (Amir) had fired his gun at Jan Muhammad after the latter had fired at Yasin, killing him, and therefore, a complete case of the exercise of the right of self-defence for the petitioner was made out. The learned Judge, however, did not consider this to be a good ground for granting bail for the reasons, firstly, that ultimately it may turn out to be a case under section 304, Part I, P. P. C., for exceeding the right of self-defence, the punishment for which extends to transportation for life. Secondly, the learned Single Judge has observed that ultimately the case may turn out to be one of a free fight between the two parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before us that the other eye-witnesses, who have been examined in the case, have made statements in the same strain. If this is correct and there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime of murder, and his right of self-defence is completely established he can press for his discharge or acquittal, as under section 96 of the Penal Code "Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of private defence". If he is found to have exceeded it, he can be convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as provided in exception (2) to section 300, P. P. C. This offence would then fall under section 304, Part 1, P. P. C., for which he may be sentenced to any term of imprisonment, which may extend to ten years, but not necessarily transportation for life, which is the maximum provided under that section. There is no mention in the order of the learned Single Judge that he has also examined the statements made by witnesses other than P. W. Manzur. We have, therefore, directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to renew the petitioner's application for bail before the learner Single Judge, who will consider the wholes case for purposes of bail on the data that is available. It may also be observed that even for purposes of bail, law is not to be stretched in favour of the prosecution. If any benefit of doubt arises, it must go to the accused. With those remarks, we dismiss this petition. K. B. A, Leave refused.