1994 P Cr (PLP)

2. The relevant facts are that case F.I.R. No.31, dated 3-3-1984 under section 409, P.P.C. was got registered against Muhammad Riaz Shahid, Mail Peon, Post Office, Gojra by Muhammad Afsar Rabar, Assistant Superintendent, Post Office, Gojra Sub-Division for misappropriation of a mail bag. During investigation, the allegations were found not proved and the case was recommended for cancellation. Consequently, Muhammad Afsar Rabar filed a private complaint against Muhammad Riaz Shahid, Mail Peon mentioned above and Muhammad Iqbal Mail Clerk (petitioner) on the allegations that on 26-7-1983, Muhammad Iqbal petitioner got prepared and sealed a transit bag containing six mail bags and entrusted the same to Muhammad Riaz Shahid for onward transmission to Railway Mail Section at Railway Station, Gojra but in connivance with Muhammad Riaz Shahid, Mail Peon took out one mail bag containing three registered parcels and misappropriated the same.

3. After recording the preliminary evidence, .the learned Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh who was previously seized of the case summoned Muhammad Riaz Shahid, Muhammad Iqbal petitioner and S.I. Ahmad Javaid to face trial.

4. After the evidence was recorded in the complaint case, the petitioner moved an application for his acquittal on the grounds that there was no evidence to link him with the offence and further that sanction for prosecution had not been obtained. The learned trial Court vide order, dated 2-3-1991, rejected the application on the ground that evidence, led in the case, provided sufficient grounds to proceed against him and it could not be held that the allegations were baseless or that there was no probability of the conviction of the accused in the alleged offence. As regard sanction for prosecution, the learned trial Court considered it appropriate to move the Government for according necessary .sanction, as required by subsection (5) of section 6 of Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958.

5. Feeling aggrieved, Muhammad Iqbal has filed this petition for quashment of the proceedings against him on the grounds that more than eight years have elapsed but the trial could not be concluded and further that his name was not mentioned in the F.I.R. No.31/1984 and that necessary sanction had not been obtained from the competent authority within the statutory period of 60 days.

6. Learned Deputy Attorney-General has stoutly contested the petitioner and states that the petitioner cannot derive benefit by the delay on the part of the learned trial Court to obtain sanction for prosecution. He stresses that the legal principle is that no one could be prejudiced by act of the Court.

7. Subsection (5) of section 6 of Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 provides that "in cases instituted upon complaint not accompanied by sanction of prosecution the Special Judge shall, immediately on receipt of the complaint, address, by letter, the appropriate Government in the matter for according sanction for prosecution, and if the required sanction is neither received nor refused within 60 days of the receipt of letter by the appropriate Government, such sanction shall be deemed to have been duly accorded". In the present case, the learned trial Court moved the appropriate authority for according sanction for prosecution of the petitioner when it was brought to its notice that no sanction had been obtained. The delay in moving the Government seems to have taken place because the case was previously pending at Toba Tek Singh and was transferred to Faisalabad under the orders of the High Court.

8. Since the entire prosecution evidence has been recorded and it has closed its case, it will not be proper for this Court to appraise evidence at this stage to find out whether any case is made out against the petitioner or not. In this view of the matter, it will be desirable if the petitioner contests the case before the learned trial Court. He may lead defence evidence in rebuttal, if he so desires. As competent authority has already been moved for according sanction for his prosecution and no intimation has been received by the Court about granting or refusing the same within 60 days of the receipt of letter from the appropriate Government, such sanction shall be deemed to have been duly accorded by virtue of subsection (5) of section 6 of Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958.

9. In this view of the matter, no case is made out for interference by this Court at this stage and accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Needless to add that none of the observations, made above, will have any adverse bearing on the mind of the learned trial Court. Record be sent back to the learned trial Court for expeditious disposal of the case. N.H.Q./M-1501/L?????? Petition dismissed.