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 Miscellaneous No. 32/Q of 1986, heard on 15th February, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 561‑A‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409/420/468/471 & 161‑ Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947), S.5‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑Sanction for prosecution‑‑Appropriate authority‑‑Accused a Sub‑Inspector, Market Committee‑‑‑ Market Committed an appropriate authority to grant sanction for prosecution‑‑Sanction granted by Deputy Commissioner, held, was not valid and trial Court could not have proceeded against accused‑‑Petition was, therefore, accepted and proceedings quashed.
S. M. K. Lodhi for Petitioner.
Kh. M. Asghar for the State.
Date of hearing: 15th February, 1986.
This is an application for the quashment of proceedings against Mahmood Ahmed petitioner in case F.I.R. No. 7 of 1983, dated 9‑2‑1983 under sections 409/420/468/471 and 161, P.P.C. and section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 pending before the learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Lahore.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Muhammad Akbar v. State reported as P L D 1958 (W.P) Lah. 118 to contend that since the petitioner was appointed as Sub‑Inspector, Market Committee, therefore, the Market Committee alone was vested with the powers of his dismissal and as such was the appropriate authority for sanction, for the prosecution of the petitioner. Whereas the sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner in the Base in hand has been granted by the Deputy Commissioner who could not have granted the same. The learned counsel for the State has not been able to controvert they submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that the sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner given by the Deputy Commissioner being not valid, the trial Court could not have proceeded against the petitioner. The being the position, the petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner are quashed. It would, however, be open to the State to prosecute the petitioner after obtaining valid sanction for his prosecution.
S.A. Petition accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer