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.
Criminal Revision Application No. 403 of 1956, decided on 7th July, 1958.
‑Offence committed by Government servant whether and when can be tried summarily‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 260‑Pakistan Penal Code (XGV of 1860), S. 323.
The rule that offences committed by Government servant should not be tried summarily is due to the reason that upon a finding of a criminal Court it is not necessary in departmental proceeding to examine the facts again. The appointing authority, who has the power to dismiss, is entitled to rely upon the judgment of the criminal Court. This rule is confined merely to those cases where, following the conviction by the Court, departmental action is to be anticipated.
No one could seriously suggest that a Government servant is liable to dismissal or reduction in rank or even a warning by his superiors on the ground that he has been convicted in a case under section 323, P. P. C., where the connection between that case and his official duties is non‑existent‑ and where there in no question of moral obliquity.
A. A. Fazeel for Applicant.
A. K. Shaikh for Opponent.
Date of hearing : 7‑7‑1958.
-- In this case the applicant, who is a stenographer in Government service, has been convicted after summary trial by the learned 12th Additional City Magistrate under section 323, P. P: C. and has been sentenced to Rs. 100 fine, in default one month's R. I. He applied in revision to the Sessions Court, and that application having been dismissed, he has now applied to this Court in revision. The first point raised by Mr. Fazeel is that the Criminal Circulars of the Chief Court of Sind state that as a rule offences committed by a Government servant should not be tried summarily, and Mr. Fazeel has referred me to the case of Sohansingh v. Emperor (12 Cr. L J 143), which was followed by Sir Shadilal in Bradley v. Emperor (A I R 1932 Lah. 188). In the first case a police constable was being prosecuted under the Police Act, and the learned Judge considered that it was most inappropriate though not illegal that Govern ment servants, no matter what their rank, should be tried summarily. But those observations must, I think, be read with reference to the case, even though the learned Judge stated that he had no hesitation in laying this down as a general rule. The reason behind this is that upon a finding of a criminal Court it is not necessary in departmental proceedings to examine the facts again. 'The appointing authority, who has the power to dismiss, is entitled to rely upon the judgment of the criminal Court. Thus this rule, in my opinion, should be confined merely to those cases where, following the conviction by the Court, departmental action is to be anticipated. I do not think, with due respect, that Mr. Justice Shadilal observed this distinction in Bradley v. Emperor.
In the present case, no one could seriously suggest that a Stenographer is liable to dismissal or reduction in rank or even a warning by his superiors on the ground that he has been convicted in a case under section 323, P. P. C. where the connection between that case and his official duties is non‑existent and where there is not question of moral obliquity.
The next point raised by Mr. Fazeel is that the form prescribed by the Provincial Government under section 263 Cr. P. C., has not been duly completed in that the examination of the accused has not been recorded in that form. The examina tion of the accused was, however, recorded separately, and at length, and it appears to me that, even assuming an irregularity has taken place, yet this irregularity is obviously curable by section 537, Criminal Procedure Code.
The third point raised by Mr. Fazeel is ‑that the Magistrate erred in holding that the identification of the accused had not been proved and he argued that this was a point of law and not of fact. I fail to see how the question, whether it was the accused who inflicted the injuries, becomes a question of law. It is true that his name was not mentioned in the first information, but that does not prevent a Magistrate from relying upon other evidence in the case.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
K. B. A. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer