Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1406 of 1986, decided on 26th November, 1986.
‑‑S. 561‑A‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 420/468‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (1I of 1947), S. 5(2)‑‑Co‑operative Societies Act (VII of 1925), S. 63‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑Dispute touching business of society‑‑Record showing that neither Registrar, Co‑operative Societies granted sanction to prosecute accused nor the accused was heard before initiating proceedings against him‑‑Proceedings quashed in circumstances.
Khanzada Hadayat Ali Khan v. Mazhar Ali Khan and others 1985 PCr.LJ 2871 ref.
G.R. Warsi for Petitioner.
A.I. Qarni for the State.
Date of hearing: 26th November, 1986.
Haji Shafiquddin lodged a complaint before the C.I.A. stating therein that he was allotted Plot No. 699 P.I.B. Colony, Karachi and he was residing at the said plot since the year 1950. He further alleged that on 28‑ 10‑ 1976 he received a notice of the cancellation of the allotment of the said plot from the Society and on enquiries it was revealed to him that the present applicant who was then the Secretary, P.I.B. Co‑operative, Housing Society had in league with other employees of the Society got the cancellation after committing forgery in the relevant records. On the basis of such report the C.I.A. registered the case against the applicant. After completion of the investigation the applicant was sent up to face trial before the Additional City Magistrate. The applicant moved an application for quashment of the proceedings which was dismissed by this Court on 26‑5‑1982 on the ground that since the applicant had not moved the trial Court under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. in the initial stage, the petition under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. was not maintainable. Subsequently an application under section 249‑A was moved before the learned Magistrate. It was averred that the applicant was a public servant and, therefore the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction in the matter to try it. the learned Magistrate stopped the proceedings and released the applicant. A revision was filed against the order which was dismissed by an Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi on the ground that the offence, it any, was triable by the Special Judge Anti‑Corruption. Consequently, the challan was sent up to the Court of Special Judge Anti‑corruption where the proceedings against the applicant are pending. The applicant moved an application under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. before the learned Special Judge which was rejected by him on 4‑8‑1986, hence the present application.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant has referred to the case of Khanzada Hadayat Ali Khan v. Mazhar Ali Khan and others 1985 P Cr. L J 2871 wherein it has been observed that any dispute touching business of Society arising between Society and any past or present member of Society could only be referred under section 54 of Co‑operative Societies Act to Registrar, Co‑operative Societies for decision by him who could initiate criminal prosecution under section 50‑A (2) of Co‑operative Societies Act if he would come to conclusion that forgery had been committed.
Under section 63(2) of the Co‑operative Societies Act every offence under this Act shall be deemed to be non‑cognizable and under section 63(3) no prosecution under this Act shall be lodged without the previous sanction of the Registrar which shall not be given except after serving a notice on the party concerned and giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
In the instant case there is nothing on record that the Registrar had granted sanction to prosecute the applicant. There is nothing on record that the applicant was heard before initiating any proceedings against him. In such view of the matter the application is allowed. The proceedings pending against the applicant in the Court of Special Judge Anti- Corruption under section 420/468 read with section q2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are quashed.
It is stated by the learned counsel for the parties that the matter is Rending before the learned Registrar, Co‑operative Societies. The Registrar, Co‑operative Societies should issue notice to the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner and the complainant pass any order deemed fit as required under section 63 of the Act. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Registrar of the Co‑operative Societies.
M.Y.H./M‑38/K Proceedings quashed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer