P L D 1960 (W (PLP)

7. Mr. Tufail, the learned advocate for the appellants, con tended that the words "the Provincial Government concerned" in section 2 (a) of the Act for the purposes of section 5 (5) of the Act means the Provincial Government within whose jurisdiction the offence is alleged to have taken place. These words do not, he contended mean the Provincial Government by whom the appellant Kotumal was employed, namely, the Sind Government.

8. In order, to answer the Reference, the questions that arise for our consideration are, firstly, whether a sanction for prosecu tion of a person other than a public servant under the Act would be necessary ; secondly, if the sanction is necessary which Govern ment has to accord, the Government within whose jurisdiction the offence has taken place or the Government whose officer was sought to be bribed ; thirdly, in respect of the Provincial Govern ment servant whether the sanction has to be accorded by the Provincial Government under whose employment he is or the Provincial Government within whose jurisdiction he has committed the offence. We propose to dispose of these questions separately.

9. Subsection (5) of section 5 of the Act provides that a person cannot be prosecuted under the Act without the previous sanction of the appropriate Government. It runs as under:‑ "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), or in any other law, the previous sanction of the appropriate Government shall be required for Any prosecution under this Act and such sanction shall be sufficient for the prosecution of a public servant for an offence triable under this Act : Provided that no such sanction shall be required in respect of a case transferred under the proviso to subsection (2) of section 4 or by virtue of subsection (4) of that section." Mr. Tufailali, the learned counsel for the appellants, relying on the above provision,. contended that sanction for prosecu tion of a person other than a public servant is also necessary. We have, however, been referred to a case decided by Rahman, C. J. (Muhammad Shafi v. The Crown (PLD 1959 Lah 1051.) in support of the proposition that subsection (5) of section 5 of the Act does not'‑require sanc tion for prosecution of a person other than a public servant. It would be convenient to reproduce the observation of my Lord the Chief Justice. It runs as under : Learned counsel concedes that the position under the ordinary law was that for an offence falling within the purview of section 163, P. P. C. committed by a person other than a public servant, no sanction of any authority was required. However, the argument is that as' the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1948, as amended from time to time, covers an offence under section 163, P. P. C. as mentioned in Schedule 11 in that Act and the words of subsection (5) of section 5 of the Act lay down permanently that the previous sanction of the appropriate shall be required for any prosecution under the Act, the appellant's case is also covered by this provision. In my opinion, the contention is without substance. The object of this subsection, is to lay down that for all offences prosecuted under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1948, if the accused was a public servant the sanction of the appropriate Government would be necessary. I am fortified in this conclu sion by reference to the words at the end of the subsection "such sanction shall be sufficient for the prosecution of a public servant for an offence triable under this Act." These words provide the key to the interpretation of the subsection, as they would have been wholly unnecessary if the contention raised on behalf of the appellant were correct. The subsection would then have stopped with the words : "for any prosecution under this Act." The subsequent clause is to be, therefore, read with what precedes it, in order to determine the intention of the Legislature. A reference to the definition of the "appropriate Government" in the amended Act would also lead to the same inference. That expression is defined clearly with reference to a .person serving either the Federation of Pakistan, or a Provincial Government, or, to a railway employee, or to any other person employed by an organization or body notified as within the purview of the Act by the Central Government. Qua the case of a person who does not fall within these categories, it would be difficult to predicate any "appropriate Government". I, therefore, agree with the learned Special Judge that no sanction for the prosecution of the appellant was required in the present case as a condition precedent for the validity of the trial."

10. We respectfully do not agree with the observations made by my Lord the Chief Justice. The fundamental rule of interpre tation to which all others are subordinate is that a statute is to be expounded "according to the intent of them that made it". If the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous no more is necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense, the words themselves in such a case best declar ing the intention of the legislature. (Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, page 1). The words "for any prosecution under this' Act" in section 5 (5) of the Act are precise and unambiguous. The intention of the legislature appears to be that sanction is pre requisite of any prosecution under the Act. The language is not capable to be construed in a way so as to make an exception in the case of persons other than public servants. The words "and such sanction shall be sufficient for the prosecution of a public servant for an offence triable under this Act" cannot, to our ‑rind, take away the force of the words "any prosecution" occurring in subsection (5) of section 5 of the Act. These words no doubt are not redundant and have been mentioned by the Legislature in order to obviate the sanction that may be required under any :other law. Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for instance, requires sanction in respect of prosecution of a public servant if he "is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty". The object of the Legislature in introducing :here quali fying words was to avoid duplication of sanction or prosecution of a public servant.

11. We are further strengthened in the conclusion that we have arrived at that subsection (5) of section 5 of the Act applies also to a person other than a public servant by a reference to section 1 of the Act: It runs as under :‑ "1. (1) This Act may be called the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1948. (2) It extends to the whole of Pakistan and applies to all citizens of Pakistan and public servants wherever they may be". As the Act applies to all citizens of Pakistan including the public servants the sanction for any prosecution under the Act means also the prosecution, of a person other than a public servant.

12. In this case we had the advantage of hearing the learned Attorney‑General. He has supported Mr. Tufallali in his contention that subsection (5) of section 5 of the Act also applies to a person other than a public servant. He has contended that the words "the previous sanction of the appropriate Government shall be required for any prosecution under this Act" are very clear and wide enough to include sanction for prosecution of a person other than a Government servant. To put any limitation on the word "any" would be doing violence to the language used by the Legislature.

13. We have, for the reasons given above, come to the conclusion that subsection (5) of section 5 of the Act requires the previous sanction of the appropriate Government for the prose cution of a person other than a public servant under the Act.

14. The next question is as to who has to accord sanction. Subsection (5) of section 5 of the Act requires the previous sanction of the appropriate Government. Appropriate Government is defined in section 2 (a) of the Act. It runs as under 2. (a) "appropriate Government" means in relation to a person serving in connection with the affairs of the Federation a railway employee and any other person employed by the Central Government or by such organization or body as pray be notified by the Central Government in pursuance of the next succeeding clause, the Central Government, and in other cases; the Pro vincial Government concerned.

15. Keeping the above definition of appropriate Government in view the question is as to which is the "Provincial Government concerned" in respect of a person other than a public servant. Mr. Tufailali contended that the "Provincial Government con cerned" should mean the Provincial 'Government within whose jurisdiction the offence has taken place. In the present case, he submitted, that the sanctioning authority would be the Chief Com missioner as the offence had taken place in Karachi. The learned Attorney‑General conceded that there is force in the interpretation put by Mr. Tufailali. He, however, contended that the "Provincial Government concerned is also capable of another interpretation. The interpretation that he put was that the "Provincial Govern ment concerned" should mean the same Government whose employee has been sought to be bribed. We have given our best consideration to the contention of the learned Attorney‑General and we have come to the conclusion that the word `concerned' is wide enough to lead one to the conclusion that in respect of a person other than a public servant the Government, concerned should mean the Government where the offence had taken place. This interpretation would be more in keeping with the general principle of law that the forum is usually the place where the offence takes place.

16. The last question is as to which Government has to accord sanction to the appellant Kotumal who was admittedly an employee of the then Sind Government. Mr. Tufailali contended that sanction accorded by the then Provincial Government was not valid as the sanction should have been accorded by the Government within whose jurisdiction the offence took place. We agree with the contention of the learned Attorney‑General that the "Provincial Government concerned" in the case of the appellant Kotumal would be the then Sind Government. Reading the definition of "appropriate Government" as, a whole we think that the intention of the legislature in respect of a public servant was that the sanction should be granted by the Government in whose employment he was. The intention of the legislature in respect of Central Govern ment servants was that the sanction Should be given by Central Government. ' There is no reason, to attribute different intention to the legislature in respect of Provincial Government servants.

17. We would answer the reference by stating that the "Pro vincial Government concerned" in section 2 (a) of the Act in reference to a person other than a public servant would mean the Provincial Government within whose jurisdiction the offence has taken place and in the case of a public servant the Provincial Government in whose employment he is. K. B. A. Reference answered.