P L D 1958 Karachi 417 (PLP)
ABDUL SATTAR‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1958 Karachi 417 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | G. B. Constantine, J |
| Parties | ABDUL SATTAR‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1958 Karachi 417 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1958 Karachi 417 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: G. B. Constantine, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1958 Karachi 417 (PLP) (ABDUL SATTAR‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdul Kadir Shaikh for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Karachi Municipal Corporation Act (XVII of 1933), Sch. 8, Ch. 1, r. 7‑Words "or other documents"‑Whether include a complaint. The fact that the legislature inserted the express exceptions regarding cheques, shows that the words "or other documents" used in rule 7 of Chapter I of Schedule 8 of the Karachi Municipal Corporation Act are sufficient to include a com plaint. (b) Karachi Municipal Corporation Act (XVII of 1933), Sch. 8, Ch. 1, r. 7‑Rule whether inconsistent with the Act. Schedule 8 of the Karachi Municipal Corporation Act was framed not by a rule‑making body, but by the legislature itself, and hence it is idle to consider any question whether rule 7 of Chapter I of the Schedule exceeds the powers given by the Act. (c) Karachi Municipal Corporation Act (XVII of 1933), S. 264 ‑Complaint bearing facsimile of Chief Officer's signature --Complaint in order.
Judgment & Decree
Schedule 8 of the Karachi Municipal Corporation Act was framed not by a rule‑making body, but by the legislature itself, and hence it is idle to consider any question whether rule 7 of Chapter I of the Schedule exceeds the powers given by the Act. (c) Karachi Municipal Corporation Act (XVII of 1933), S. 264 ‑Complaint bearing facsimile of Chief Officer's signature --Complaint in order. Abdul Kadir Shaikh for Respondent. CONSTANTINE, J.‑
In this reference the convict and the Municipality though served, have remained absent, but I have been assisted by Mr. Abdul Kadir Shaikh the Assistant Advocate General. The convict was convicted under the Municipal Corporation Act and sentenced to a fine of Rs.
10. Section 264 of the Karachi Municipal Act provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a complaint signed by the Chief Officer. The complaint in fact bore a facsimile of the signature of the Chief Officer, impressed by means of a rubber stamp. The learned Additional Sessions Judge Karachi (Mr. Iftikhar Hussain) has called attention to rule 7 of Chapter I of Schedule 8 of the Karachi Municipal Corporation Act which provides "every licence, written permission, bill, schedule, summons or other document required by this Act or any rules made thereunder to bear the signature of the Chief Officer shall be deemed to be properly signed if it bears a facsimile of the signature of the Chief Officer stamped thereupon. Nothing in this rule shall be deemed to apply to a cheque drawn upon the municipal or education fund." The first ground is that the words "or other documents" used in this rule could not include a complaint. No reason is given for this conclusion. Whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge considered that a complaint is not ejusdem generis with licence, notice, etc. is not clear, but I think the fact that the legislature inserted the express exception regarding cheques, shows that these words were sufficient to include a complaint. The next ground was that this rule, even if it applied, was inconsistent with the Act. But the learned Additional Sessions Judge apparently did not have quoted before him S. 281 of the B Act. This schedule was framed not by a rule‑making body, but by the . legislature itself, and hence it is idle to consider any question whether the rule exceeds the powers given by the Act. The conclusion therefore is that a complaint bearing the facsimile of the Chief Officer's signature is sufficient for the pur pose of section 264 of the Karachi Municipal Corporation Act. C This reference should be returned accordingly. K. B. A. Reference answered.