Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 639 of 1986, decided on 23th April, 1986.

‑‑‑Ss. 420, 511, 467, 109 & 204‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)‑‑Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act (XL of 1958), S.10(4)‑‑Punjab Government Rules of Business, 1974‑‑Accused, Member of Local Council Service‑‑Sanction for prosecution of accused which was granted by Commissioner as well as by Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Department, withdrawn‑‑Special Judge Anti‑Corruption before whom accused facing trial rejected application accused for dropping proceedings on ground that appropriate Government referred to in S.10(4) of Act XL of 1958 was Government in Services and General Administration Department to whom subject of Anti‑Corruption was entrusted under Punjab Government Rules of Business, 1974 and not Local Government and Rural Development Department‑‑‑ Held, appropriate Government in case of accused was Commissioner‑who was his appointing and dismissing authority and not even Local Government Department' and since appropriate Government had withdrawn from prosecution of accused, criminal proceedings against him were without lawful authority‑‑Mere fact that Anti‑Corruption Establishment for time being was attached with Services Deptt. was no reason to assume that sanction for prosecution and withdrawal from prosecution was to be made by Services Deptt. which was regulating personnel side of Anti‑Corruption Establishment and could not assume administrative control over employees of Government which did not otherwise fall within administrative control of that Department‑‑ Proceedings against petitioner declared without lawful authority..

Muhammad Arshad Javed v. The State 1985 P Cr. L J 310 ref.

A.W. Butt for Petitioner.

Akhtar Shabbir, Asstt. A.‑G. for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 23th April, 1986.

Qazi Khalid Saifullah, petitioner is a member of the Local Council Service. He is facing trial before the Special Judge Anti‑Corruption Gujrat for an offence under section 420/511/467/109/204, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He moved an application before the Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption that the case against him be dropped because the Commissioner Gujranwala Division had withdrawn the sanction for prosecution through an order, dated 9‑5‑1985. He also produced a similar odder withdrawing the prosecution passed by the Government of the Punjab in the Local Government and Rural Development Department on 11‑8‑1985. The learned Judge, however, rejected the application on the ground that the appropriate Government referred to in section 10(4) of the Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958 will mean appropriate Government in the department concerned and since under the Rules of Business of Punjab Government, 1974, the subject to of Anti‑corruption has been entrusted to the Services, General Administration and Information Department, the sanction granted by the Secretary Local Government and Rural Development Department was of no avail. The petitioner has challenged the orders in the High Court.

2. It is an admitted position that the Commissioner was the appointing, and dismissing authority in this case and that sanction for prosecution was also granted by the Commissioner. The Commissioner was, therefore, acting as the appropriate Government visualised by section 10(4) of I the Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958. The petitioner, additionally produced the orders of the Secretary, Local Government Department because as member of the local council service, the Administrative Department, of the Provincial Government under which the petitioner is serving, is the Local Government and Rural Development Department. The mere fact that the Anti‑Corruption Establishment for the time being is attached with the Services Department, is no reason to assume that the sanction for prosecution and the withdrawal from B prosecution is to be made by the Services Department and not by the Department under whom the petitioner is serving. No doubt, Services Department regulates personnel side of the Anti‑Corruption Establishment but by that too it cannot assume administrative control over the employees of the Government which do not otherwise fall within the administrative control of that department. The petitioner belongs to the Local Government Department, therefore, the appropriate Government in his case will be the Local Government Department and not the Services Department. In the case of the petitioner, however, the appropriate Government means the Commissioner, because he is appointing and dismissing authority of the petitioner and not even the Local Government Department.

3. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General has referred to the case of Muhammad Arshad Javed v. The State 1985 P Cr. L J 310, but with utmost respect, I am unable to contribute to 'the view expressed in that judgment.

4. In view of the above considerations, the writ petition is allowed. Since the appropriate Government has withdrawn from the prosecution of the petitioner, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner are declared to be without lawful authority. There shall be no order as to costs.

M.Y.H. Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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