| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1957 SLG 142 1957 SLD 142 = 1957 PLD 10 |
Baghdad ul Jadid
Revisional Side Case No. 31 of 1957/BWP, decided on 19th June 1957. Reference made by the District Magistrate, Rahimyarkhan, dated the 13th March 1957.
Before S. A. Rehman, CJ
Muhammad Din for Petitioners. M. Anwar, A. A. G. for the State.
Revisional Side Case No. 31 of 1957/BWP, decided on 19th June 1957. Reference made by the District Magistrate, Rahimyarkhan, dated the 13th March 1957.
Before S. A. Rehman, CJ
Muhammad Din for Petitioners. M. Anwar, A. A. G. for the State.
Munshi NOOR AHMAD and others-Petitioners
VERSUS
Malik ABDUL RAHMAN-Respondent
Law: Bahawalpur Prevention of Corruption Act (V of 1950)
Section: 6, 409
P L D 1957 (W. P.) Baghdad-ul-Jadid 10 (a) Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act (XIX of 1948) (as amended)-- Not applicable in territory covered by former Bahawalpur State. Held, that the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act (XIX of 1948) (as amended in 1953) being in conflict with the law as it prevailed in the Bahawalpur territory before the integration of West Pakistan, could not be deemed to be in force because of saving provisions, contained in section 10 of the establishment of West Pakistan Act, 1955. The position did not alter when the new Constitution was enforced because similar saving provisions were enacted in Article 224 of the Constitution. State v. Said Ahmad P L D 1957 B J 1 ref. (b) Bahawalpur Prevention of Corruption Act (V of 1950), S. 6---Sanction to prosecute---Offence under S. 409, P. P. C. coupled with forging of accounts----Provision as to necessity of sanction cannot be defeated by confining the complaint to offence under S. 467, P. P. C., for which no sanction was required---Test for determining when sanction was necessary in such cases. A complaint under only section 467, P. P. C. was preferred in respect of allegations of misappropriation of a sum of money by forging accounts. The complaint under section 467, P. P. C., under the Bahawalpur law did not require any sanction. The offence of misappropriation, however, being one under section 409, P. P. C. was covered by clause (c) of section 5 of the Bahawalpur Prevention of Corruption Act and, there fore, in the face of section 6 of that Act, could only be tried after obtaining requisite sanction from the authority mentioned in the latter section. It was argued for the accused that the complaint could not proceed for want of sanction. Held, that without the sanction of the authority mentioned in section 6 of the Bahawalpur Prevention of Corruption Act the case could not be proceeded with. The test in such cases was whether primarily and essen tially the allegations made would pertain to an offence which cannot be tried without sanction of the prescribed authority. The allegations really amounted to…