Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.360 and Miscellaneous Application No. 508 of 1987, decided on 15th April, 1987.

‑‑‑‑S. 6(5)‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)‑ Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561‑A‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑Sanction for prosecution of accused public servant refused by Deputy Commissioner but refusal not reaching Special Judge within statutory period of sixty days and conveyed to him after five months‑ Sanction, held, would be deemed to have been duly accorded for prosecutions accused after lapse of sixty days and proceedings started against him not liable to be quashed on plea that sanction was refused.

Ruknuddin Kammi for Applicant.

The applicant is facing trial before the learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption, Sukkur under section 161 PPC read with section 5 (2) of Act II of 1947 on the basis of direct complaint. As the complaint was not accompanied by sanction for the prosecution of the applicant, a public servant, the learned Special Judge addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur under the first proviso to subsection (5) of section 6 of The Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 which reads as follows:

"Provided that in case where the complaint or report referred to in subsection (1) of section 5 is not accompanied by such sanction the Special Judge shall, immediately on receipt of the complaint or report, address, by letter, the appropriate Government in the matter, and if the required sanction is neither received nor refused within sixty days of the receipt of the letter by the appropriate Government such sanction shall be deemed to have been duly accorded."

This letter was addressed by the learned Special Judge on 22‑3‑1986 to the Deputy Commissioner and Chairman of the Anti‑Corruption Committee No.III, Sukkur clearly stating that in case the sanction for prosecution was neither received nor refused within a period of sixty days from the receipt of such letter it shall be deemed to have been accorded as envisaged by the law. This letter was delivered in the office of the Deputy Commissioner on 24‑3‑1986. There was no. response from the said authority and accordingly after the lapse of sixty days, the learned Special Judge took congnizance of the offence by order dated 31‑5‑1986 and issued process against the applicant accused.

An application was moved under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. by the applicant accused before the learned Special Judge relying upon judgment of the learned Single Judge of this court in the case of Qamardin vs. State (NLR 1982 Cr.C.451). By order dated 14‑3‑1987, the learned Special Judge rejected the application holding that the authority relied upon on behalf of the applicant was distinguishable and of no help to the applicant. In the circumstances, the present petition has been filed under section 435/561‑A, Cr.P.C. I have heard Mr. Rukunuddin Kammi. learned counsel for the applicant.

The relevant provision has already been reproduced hereinabove. Learned counsel submits that by letter dated 19‑8‑1986 of the Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur addressed to the learned Special Judge (Annexure 'C' to this petition) it has been informed that it would be inexpedient to accord sanction for prosecution of the applicant i.e. according to the Deputy Commissioner the sanction had been refused. According to Mr. Rukunuddin Kammi's learned counsel for the applicant, although the period of sixty days is mentioned in the first proviso to subsection (5) of section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958, as the sanction has been refused, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. Reliance has been placed upon the same authority which was cited before the learned Special Judge and considered by him to be distinguishable.

I find no ambiguity in the provisions of the applicable law. I have also gone through the judgment reported in NLR 1982 Cr. C .451. I am in agreement with the learned Special Judge that this reported judgment does not support the applicant's case. In the reported judgment the Special Judge, by letter dated 2‑10‑1980 addressed to the Commissioner/ Chairman Anti‑Corruption Committee No.II, had requested for necessary sanction and his letter was received in the office of the Commissioner on 4‑10‑1980 and the Commissioner refused to grant the sanction on 2‑12‑1980 (i.e. it was clearly within sixty days) and communicated the refusal to the relevant authorities. The letter containing the refusal was received by the Special Judge on 7‑12‑1980. The Special Judge in that case held that the refusal had been received after sixty days and proceeded with the case. A quashment application was filed which was allowed by the learned Single Judge and the judgment is reported, as observed, in NLR 1982 Cr.C 451. Learned Judge in that case has clearly stated that the sanction had been refused on 2‑12‑1980 (within sixty days) and that the fact Of refusal of sanction on 2‑12‑1980 could not be denied and in these circumstances where the sanction had been refused within sixty days, the learned Judge held that even if the letter of intimation was received by the court which was late by 3 days, it did not mean that the sanction had not been refused.

The judgment cited by learned counsel and reported in 1982 NLR Cr.C.451 does not support the applicant in the facts of the instant case where admittedly the refusal has not been given within sixty days. In fact the document produced by the learned counsel shows that the letter of refusal is after about 5 months. As the refusal had not been given within sixty days, in terms of the provisions of the applicable law "such sanction shall be deemed to be duly accorded."

I am, therefore, of the view that under the law the sanction had been deemed to have been accorded for the prosecution of the applicant, On the ground taken in the present application that after 5 months the refusal has come the proceedings are not liable to be quashed.

Cr.Misc.A.No/360/87 is accordingly dismissed.

2. M.A. 508/87 has become infructuous.

M.Y.H/M‑238/K. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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