| 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
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…
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