Case Details

Citation(s)
1954 SLG 122 1954 SLD 122 1954 PLD 37
Lahore High Court
Revision Petition No. 272 of 1953, decision dated: 25-09-1953, under section 439. Cr. P. C., for revision of the order of S. A. Nasir, Sessions Judge, Multan at Muzaffargarh, dated the 4th March 1953
S. A. RAHMAN, J
Mahmud Ali for Petitioner. S. A. Mahmud, Assistant Advocate-General for
Respondent

TUFAIL MUHAMMAD---Convict

VS

THE CROWN---Respondent

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 439

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 439

Law: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947

Section: 6(b),6

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 21

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860). S. 21, eighth and ninth clauses-Government servant not appointed according to statute, held to be "public servant". Under the Punjab Cotton Control Act, 1949, the appoint­ment of a Cotton Inspector under section 8 of the Act could only have been made by notification under orders of Govern­ment. Notification in this context means notification in the Official Gazette published under proper authority, by virtue of section 2 (36) the Punjab General Clauses Act. The Director of Agriculture could not act as the appointing authority unless that function had been delegated to this officer by Government under section 7 of the Act and that also by a notification. It was conceded on behalf of the Govern­ment that no such notification was issued delegating powers of Government in respect of the appointment of Cotton Inspec­tors to the Director of Agriculture. The inference was, therefore, clear that the appointment of the petitioner by the Director of Agriculture, though it purported to have been made under the Act, cannot be regarded as one made in pursuance of the provisions of the Act. At the same time it was obvious that the petitioner was not employed as a private servant by the Director of Agricul­ture. He was assigned certain duties as a Government servant on the assumption that his appointment was valid under the Act. Those duties were, in fact, identical with the duties of other Cotton Inspectors duly appointed under the Act, The petitioner would, be covered by the 8th and 9th clauses of section 21 P. P. C., arid he would, therefore, be a "public servant". (b) Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 6 (b)----­Director of Agriculture not invested with legal authority to appoint "Cotton Inspector" appointing petitioner as such-­Authority; responsible for appointment, held, able to order dis­missal-Proper authority for according sanction to prosecution for bribery. The petitioner's appointment was made not by the Provincial Government but by the Director of Agriculture, apparently without having been invested with legal authority to do so under the Act. On general principles one does not see with the authority which was responsible…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492