Find a Lawyer

‑‑‑‑ Ss. 561‑A & 403‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 468, 471, 420 & 109‑Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947), S. 5‑Quashing of pro ceedings‑‑Trial Court, in absence of sanction for prosecution deleting name of accused from column relating to accused persons ‑ On receipt of such sanction trial Court issuing process but again drop ping proceedings‑‑Trial Court once again summoning accused to face trial for same offence‑Order of trial Court showing that accused was not acquitted but simply released‑Section 403, Cr. P. C., held, not helpful to accused and his retrial not barred in circumstances.

(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑---

‑‑ Ss. 468, 471, 420 & 109‑Prevention of Corruption Act (1I of 1947), S. 5‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439‑Quashing of proceedings‑Order of trial Court calling upon accused to face trial for same offence in which he was formerly released, not a speaking order but appearing to have been passed in routine without taking into account former orders of release ‑High Court in suo motu exercise of revisional jurisdiction setting aside such order of summoning of accused.

Raja Khurshid‑un‑Nasir for Petitioner.

Nasir Ahmed Bhatti for the State.

This is an application under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. for the quashment of proceedings under section 468/471/420/109, P. P. C., read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, initiated against petitioner by Special Judge Anti‑Corruption Bahawalpur, vide its order, dated 27th May, 1982.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition in brief are that on 19‑5‑1976 a case under section 468/471/420/109, 1'. P. C., read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was registered at Police Station Anti Corruption, Babawalpur, against the petitioner and others. The challan was submitted before the learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Bahawalpur.

3. Since no sanction far the prosecution of the petitioner was given, the trial Court vide its order, dated 31‑1‑1981, deleted the name of the petitioner from the column relating to accused persons. Thereafter on receiv ing sanction by the competent committee the learned trial Court issued process against the petitioners but on 26‑4‑1982 dropped proceedings against him. On 27‑5‑1982 the trial Court has again summoned the petitioner to face the trial for the same offence. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has been acquitted by the trial Court vide its orders, dated 31‑1‑1981 and 24‑4‑1982, therefore, be cannot be tried for the same offence.

4. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the record I find that the petitioner was, in fact, never acquitted by the trial Court. The orders may be reproduced with some advantage:

The plain reading of these orders indicates that the petitioner was never acquitted of the charges and he was simply released. The orders dated 31‑1‑1981 and 28‑4‑1982 being not the orders of the acquittal, section 403,' Cr. P. C., is not helpful to the petitioner and as such there is no bar to his trial.

5. Despite these findings I am inclined to set aside the order, dated 27‑5‑1982 in the suo motu exercise of the revisional powers of this Court under section 439, Cr. P. C., inasmuch as that the order is not a speaking one and appears to have been passed in routine without taking into account the orders dated 31‑1‑1981 and 28‑4‑1982.

6. Resultantly the order, dated 27‑5‑1982 to the extent of summoning the petitioner is set aside. The case is remanded to the trial Court with the, direction that it shall reconsider the desirability of summoning Muhammad Rafique as an accused person in the light of the orders, dated 31‑1‑1981 and 28‑4‑1982, according to law.

M. Y. H. Proceeding quashed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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