Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 71 of 1968, decided on 26th June 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 9th January 1968, in Criminal Revision No. 587 of 1965).
Ss. 2 & 6 (5)‑Amendment of S. 2 by Anti‑Corruption Laws (Amendment) Act, 1965 Retrospective in effect‑Accused an employee of organisation setup by Central Government‑Central Government appropriate authority to grant sanction for prosecution.
Ali Ahmad v. The State P L D 1962 S C 102 ref.
Muhammad Siddiq, Senior Attorney Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing : 26th June 1968.
‑The only question raised in this petition for special leave to appeal is whether proper sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner has been obtained in this case.
The petitioner, Muhammad Naseem, a Land Superintendent of the Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi, is being prosecuted for an offence under section 161 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. His preliminary objection that no proper sanction had been obtained for his prosecution was overruled by the Special Judge and the said order was upheld in revision by a learned Single Judge of the High Court. He now seeks special leave to appeal against that order.
In this case sanction for prosecution of the petitioner has been granted by the Central Government. His contention before the High Court was that "under subsection (5) of section 6 of the Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958 previous sanction of the appropriate Government was required for the prosecution of a public servant and that in view of the language of section 2 of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, the sanction granted by the Central Government was not proper".
The learned Single Judge has rightly overruled this conten tion in view of the amendment of section 2 of the Act by Act XII of 1965 (Anti‑Corruption Law Amendment Act of 1965). ‑
Mr. Siddiq, the Senior Attorney, appearing for the petitioner, has contended that this amendment could not have retrospective effect. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has rightly pointed out :‑
"Needless to point out this amendment came into force on the day the amending Act was passed and being in the nature of an amendment of a procedural law which is retrospective in effect, according to this amendment the Central Government was the appropriate Government to grant the sanction as the petitioner was an employee of corporation or other body or organization set up by the Central Government."
In conclusion, we may observe that in view of the decision of this Court in All Ahmad v. The State (PLD1962SC102) the Special Judge would be quite competent to try this case. This petition,. therefore, has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer