Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 622 of 1963, decided on 27th September 1968.

Ss. S(1) cfc 3(1)‑Special Judge‑Trial of Scheduled offence by Judge not appointed as such by appropriate Govern ment‑No trial in eye of law‑Acquittal recorded by such Judge set aside.

Since the offences in the case were within the exclusive juris diction of the Special Judge who was to be appointed by the Central Government and since Judge trying the case had not been so appointed the trial held by him against the respondent was no trial in the eye of law. The trial of the respondent has, therefore, been vitiated and the acquittal recorded by the Special Judge in favour of the respondent has also no validity in eye of law.

Qazi Muhammad Saleem for A.‑G. for the State.

Dr. Javed Iqbal for Respondent.

‑Bashir Ahmad respondent was challaned by the Anti‑Corruption Police under section 161, P. P. C., and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for having on the 26th of May 1962, while posted as Goods Clerk at Railway Station Abdul Hakim, obtained Rs.200 as illegal gratification from Kabir Khan P. W. as a reward for loading and booking goods for him. He was tried by Sh. Farooq Ahmad, Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Multan, and was acquitted under the orders dated the 11th of April 1963.

2. The State has come in appeal against the order of acquittal on the ground that the acquittal was not warranted by the evidence produced in the case. After the admission of the appeal the additional objection was raised at the Bar that the trial held by Sh. Farooq Ahmad was no trial in the eye of law as he had not been empowered by the Central Government to try as Special Judge, the scheduled offence under the Criminal Law (Amendment), Act, 1958. Numerous opportunities were allowed to enable the parties to produce the Notification on behalf of the Central Government empowering Sh. Farooq Ahmad as Special Judge. No such notification has been produced and the result is that Sh. Farooq Ahmad was not competent to try this case as Special Judge (Central). According to section 5(1) of the Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958, "notwith standing anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, or in any other law, the offences specified in the Schedule shall be triable exclusively by a Special Judge". It is not disputed that the offences for which the respondent was tried were mentioned in the Schedule of the aforementioned 1958 Act. It is also not disputed that since the respondent was at the relevant time a railway employee the "appropriate Government" in his case in terms of section 2(a) of the 1958 Act was the Central Government. Under section 3(1) ibid, "the appropriate Govern ment shall, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint as many special Judges as may be necessary to try and punish offences specified in the Schedule". Subsections (1) and (3) of section 4 ibid are also in point. Since the offence in this case were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Special Judge who was to be appointed by the Central Government and since Sh. Farooq Ahmad had not been so appointed the trial held by him against the respondent was no trial in the eye of law. The trial of the respondent has, therefore, been vitiated and the acquittal recorded by the learned Special Judge in favour of the respondent has also no validity in the eye of law. In consequ ence, the acquittal of the respondent recorded by Sh. Farooq Ahmad, under the judgment dated the 11th of April 1963 is hereby declared to be illegal and is set aside.

A. E. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.