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 No. 712 of 1984, heard on 23rd January, 1985.
‑‑‑Ss. 420 468 & 471‑‑Sanction for prosecution‑‑Accused 's application for stay of proceedings, on ground that no sanction for prosecution obtained, rejected‑‑Trial Court making observation in order that no appeal against order of dismissal of accused's application was pending, which was factually incorrect‑‑Order of rejection of application set aside and case sent back to trial Court for re‑consideration of application in light of relevant file of pending appeal.
Ch. Khan Muhammad Bajwa for Petitioner.
Sh. Jamal Din for the State.
Date of hearing: 23rd January, 1985.
The facts giving rise to this revision, briefly, are that a case under aections420/468/471, P.P.C. was registered against Fayyaz Hussain petitioner at P.S. Qila Gujjar Singh vide F.I.R. No.593, dated 2‑10‑1979. After investigation, the challan was submitted in the Court of learned Special Judge Anti‑Corruption on 3‑11‑1983. On 5‑7‑1984, the petitioner/ accused moved application for the stay of proceedings on the ground that there being no sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner/accused, the cognizance of the case could not have been taken by the trial Court. In the application, ft. was also requested that the trial Court should obtain proper sanction from appropriate authority. This application was rejected on 31‑10‑1984, hence this revision.
2. Learned counsel far the petitioner submits that the observation made by the trial Court that no appeal against the order of the dismissal of the petitioner/accused was pending at that time, was factually incorrect, inasmuch as, the appellant had filed appeal on 18‑2‑1984 and the D.I.‑G., Lahore had called for comments and report from the S.P. and that the appeal has not been disposed of so far. The learned counsel for the State after going through the relevant record, states that the appeal filed by the petitioner/ accused on 18‑2‑1984 is still pending decision. That being the factual position, I am of the view that there is no option but to set aside the impugned order and send back the case to the learned Special Judge for the reconsideration of, application, dated 5‑7‑1984 in the light of the relevant file of appeal pending before D.I.‑G., Lahore. Order accordingly.
M. A. K. Case remanded.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer