Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1962

Section: 98

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 1lth February 1970, in Petition No. 446 of 1967). (a) East Pakistan Food (Special Courts) Act (X of 1956), -S. 6-Accused fully apprised of allegations against him and not prejudiced in any way-Mere non-mention of notified orders in charge, even if an irregularity, held, cured under S. 537 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 537. (b) East Pakistan (Special Courts) Act (X of 1956), S. 6 Vires of statute-Contention that S. 6 of the Act, having failed to specify amount of fine that could be imposed, Act is bad-Not tenable. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98-Writ proceed ings-High Court in writ proceedings not finding conviction and sentences illegal but merely directing sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently instead of consecutively as ordered by lower Court Order being to his benefit, accused, held, not aggrieved. (d) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98-Writ jurisdiction Confirmation of conviction and sentence in writ proceedings Not appropriate. Date of hearing : 30th May 1970. JUDGMENT SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-The petitioner has been convicted by the Special Judge on charges framed under section 6 of the East Pakistan Food (Special Courts) Act, 1956 (Act X of 1956) hereinafter called the Act upon the allegations that he kept concealed in his possession a huge quantity of joshi rice and that he carried on business in food grain, namely, rice without any lawful authority, and sentenced under the first count to a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for twenty months and under the second count to a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for eighteen months and a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default to rigorous imprisonment for six months. The sentences of imprisonment were directed to run consecutively. Having been aggrieved by this order the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 98 of the Constitution but the Rule nisi that was originally issued was discharged with only a modification of the sentence, namely, the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently instead of con secutively. The High Court, however,…