Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 360 of 1985, heard on 10th July, 1985.

Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)--

---S. 5--Special Judge Anti-Corruption, on request of petitioner a prosecution witness and Pardahnasheen lady asking District Magistrate to depute a Magistrate as Commissioner for recording her statement but failing to send him particulars of accused in whose presence her statement was to be recorded--District Magistrate asking for requisite particulars but Special Judge cancelling his former order regarding deputation of a Commission--Judge Anti-Corruption, was duty bound to furnish complete particulars of parties to District Magistrate while asking him to depute. a Magistrate for recording her statement--Special Judge did not give notice of his intention to cancel his former orders to petitioner- Order of cancellation, held, not only illegal, perverse but also arbitrary which condemned petitioner unheard without any fault on her part--Order of cancellation passed by Special Judge was set aside and his order asking District Magistrate to depute a Magistrate as Commission restored--Special Judge directed to furnish addresses of parties to District Magistrate.

Riaz Kayani for Petitioner.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing: 10th July, 1985.

The facts giving rise to this revision briefly are, that in case State v. Khizar Hayat and .2 others, under section 5 of the P.C.A. 1947 pending before the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore, Mst. Naseem Akhtar petitioner is a prosecution witness. She is Purdah-observing lady. An application was moved on her behalf for recording her evidence through commission. Respondents Nos. 2 to 4/accused,. had no objection to her examination' through commission, therefore, the learned Special Judge vide his order, dated 22-1-1983 accepted the application and asked the learned District Magistrate for deputing Magistrate as Commissioner. The learned District Magistrate deputed Zafar Iqbal Gill Magistrate to record the statement of the petitioner on commission. Since the statement of the petitioner was to be recorded in the presence of the accused and the particulars of the accused were not given in the letter sent by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption to the learned District Magistrate, therefore, the :earned District Magistrate requested that the addresses of the accused persons be supplied so that the needful be done. On this the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption cancelled his order, dated 22-1-1983 on 27-4-1985, hence this revision. .

2. The order of the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption reads as follows:-

"Learned S. P. P. present. Statement recorded through the' commission (Magistrate) of Mst. Nasim Akhtar not received. The A.D.M., Lahore intimated that the particulars of all the parties are not available. I think that the commission be cancelled under the circumstances and 1 order -accordingly. An intimation be given to the D.M. P.W. be summoned for 20th of May, 1985.'

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed without any fault of the petitioner. No one has appeared for the respondents to oppose this revision.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel with care. I feel persuaded to agree with him. I find that the order passed by the learned Special Judge is not only illegal, perverse but also arbitrary one. He has condemned the petitioner unheard and, punished a Purdah-observing lady, without any fault on her RIA was the duty of the learned Special Judge himself to furnish the complete particulars of the parties to the District Magistrate while asking him toy depute Magistrate for recording the statement of the petitioner on commission. The learned Special Judge did not even care to give notice; of his intention to cancel his previous order to the petitioner and; cancelled the same at her back.

For what has been said above, the revision is accepted and the order, dated 27-4-1985 is set aside. Resultantly the order, dated 22-1-1983 of the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption stands restored. The learners Special Judge shall furnish the addresses of the parties to the District Magistrate as requested by the latter in his letter, dated 10-2-1985 so that the petitioner is examined through commission.

M. Y. H.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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