Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 1984, heard on 26th January, 1985.

‑‑‑Ss. 161 a 162‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)‑ Sanction for prosecution‑‑Competent authority granting sanction for trial of accused under S.161, P.P.C. read with S.5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, but accused charged and convicted under S.162, P.P.C.‑‑Conviction and sentence of accused set aside and case remanded to trial Court for retrial after obtaining proper sanction or amending charge‑‑Accused ordered to be released on bail till disposal of case by trial Court‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.526.

Syed Tanseer Asghar for Appellant.

Naseem Iqbal for the State.

Date of hearing: 26th January, 1985.

This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, Lahore whereby he on 18‑3‑1984 convicted Rehmat Masih appellant under section 162, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to 3 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 in default thereof 6 months' R.I.

2. Since after hearing the learned counsel I feel inclined to set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant on account of invalid sanction for his prosecution, I need not enter into the facts of the case and discuss the evidence. I find that the competent authority had granted sanction for the trial of the appellant under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) 47 whereas not only charge under section 162, P.P.C. was framed but also the appellant was convicted under section 162, P.P.C. Since there was no sanction for the prosecution of the appellant under section 162, P.P.C., therefore, the appellant could not have been charged under section 162, P.P.C. and proceeded against under that section. That being the position, the entire proceedings including the order of conviction stand vitiated.

3. For what has been stated above, there is no option but to set A aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant and send back the case to the trial Court for retrial after having obtained proper sanction or after having amended the charge. The appellant is in custody. He is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C.(Duty Magistrate, Lahore. He shall remain on bail till the disposal of the case by the trial Court.

M. A. K. Case remanded.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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