Find a Lawyer

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 109 of 1955, decided on 18th October 1955.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, dated the 22nd July 1955, in Criminal Appeal No. 900 of 1954).

as amended by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act (XXXVII of 1953), S. .5 (S)‑Sanction already obtained under S. 6, Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)‑Case transferred to Special Judge under subsection (4) of S. 4‑No fresh sanction required after transfer.

The case was originally instituted in the Court of a Magistrate, under a sanction obtained under section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (I1 of 1947). 7 he case was subse quently transferred to the Court of a Special Judge under the provisions of subsection (4) of section 4 of Act XIX of 1948 as amended by section 6 (d) of Act XXXVII of 1953.

Held, that no fresh sanction under the Act of 1948 was necessary.

The need for such sanction was expressly dispensed with by the proviso to subsection (5) of section 5 of the 1948 Act as amended by the Act of 1953.

‑Misdescription of designation by officer while giving sanction‑Immaterial.

The same officer was Collector and Deputy Commissioner of the District. The document embodying sanction to a prosecution under subsection (2) of section 5 of Act 11 of 1947, described the officer as Deputy Commissioner instead of as the Collector.

Held, that the officer being one and the same person, the misdescription was immaterial.

Muhammad Shaft, Advocate, Federal Court, instructed by Ai. Siddiq, Attorney for Petitioner.

Respondent : Not respresented.

Date of hearing :18th October 1955.

This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Judge of the High Court of Lahore by which he dismissed the petitioner's appeal from a conviction under subsection (2) of section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947).

The petitioner was a Wasil‑Baqi‑Nawis in the District of Lahore and the allegation which has been held to be proved against him was that he accepted a sum of Rs. 80 as illegal gratification from one Fazal Din.

The offence was originally taken cognizance of by Ch. Bashir Ahmad, a section 30 Magistrate, and was being tried under the ordinary law when the case was transferred to Ch. Qadir Bakhsh, a Special Judge, under subsection (4) of section 4 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (XIX of 1948) as amended by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act (XXXVII of 1953) which came into force on 17th November 1953. Before the offence was taken cognizance of, sanction for the prosecution had been obtained under section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947) from Syed Ijaz Hussain Shah, Deputy Commissioner, Lahore. The point raised in this petition by Mr. Muhammad Shah, is that in the absence of a sanction tinder subsection (5) of section 5 of Act XIX of 1948 as amended by section 6 (e) (iii) of Act XXXVII of 1953, the prosecution of the petitioner could not proceed before a Special Judge. This contention is obviously untenable because under the proviso to that section no "such sanction" is required in respect of a case transferred under the provisions of subsection (2) of section 4 of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act (XIX of 1948) as amended by Act XXXVII of 1953 or by virtue of subsection (4) of that section. The present case, having been transferred under subsection (4), no sanction under the Act of 1953 was necessary because the words "such sanction" in the proviso to subsection (5) of section 5 can only mean "the previous sanction of the appropriate Government . . . . . . for any prosecution under this Act." Therefore, the prosecution could proceed on the basis of the sanction given under section 6 of the Act of 1947. Nor did a different sanction become necessary by reason of subsection (5) of section 5 of the Pakistan Criminal Law, (Amendment) Act of 1948 (XIX of 1948), because under that provision the ;sanction of the Central Government is required only for prosecution under that Act before the. Special Judges. The necessity for such sanction further restricts the jurisdiction of Special Judges which is declared by section 4 of that Act as extending to such territorial limits as may be fixed by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette in respect of cases sent up to him for trial by the Special Police Establishment constituted under the Pakistan Special Police Establishment Ordinance VIII of 1948. The plain meaning of this section is that the Special Judge can have jurisdiction within certain territorial limits only in respect of cases which are sent up to him by the Special Police Establishment. If, therefore, a case is not sent up to a Special Judge by the Special Police Establishment, his jurisdiction in respect of that offence does not at all commence. There is nothing in the Act of 1948 which expressly or by necessary implication lays down that the jurisdiction of the ordinary Courts in respect of offences which they are competent to try under the general law is ousted by the appointment of a Special Judge. In fact, the provision relating to the appointment of Special Judges under that Act, namely, section 3, itself makes it optional for the Central Government to appoint Special Judges, and it is impossible to hold on the language of that section that a Special Judge on his appointment ousts the jurisdiction of ordinary Courts in respect of offences which have not been investigated and sent up by the Special Police Establishment. In the present case, the case was neither investigated nor sent up to a Special Judge by the Special Police Establishment and, therefore, the matter was not within the jurisdiction of a Special Judge appointed under the Act of 1948 before its amendment by the Act of 1953. Accordingly no sanction under the Act of 1948 was necessary, and the Special Judge who actually convicted the petitioner acquired jurisdiction in the case only by section 6 (d) (4) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 1953, and the need .for sanction of the appropriate Government in such a case is expressly dispensed with by the proviso to subsection (5) of section 5 of the 1948 Act as amended by the Act .of 1953.

The second point taken by Mr. Muhammad Shafi is that the sanction under section 6 of the Act of 1947 was given by Syed Ijaz Husain Shah not as Collector but as Deputy Com missioner. It is not contended that the Deputy Commissioner of Lahore is not the Collector for the District. The Court is entitled to take judicial notice of the fact that the officer who gave the sanction was a Collector of the District, though while giving the sanction he described himself as Deputy Commissioner. We see no force in this petition and therefore dismiss it.

A.H. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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