Law: Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act (XL of 1958)

Section: 6

Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act (XL of 1958), S. 6(5)-Government servant- Sanction to prosecute-Circumstances revealing unwillingness of authorised officer to grant sanction for prosecution-Anti-Corruption Committee deciding to prosecute accused officer in absence of authorised officer-Authorised officer later according sanction when country was engaged in war---Contention that sanction was a mere mechanical act granted according to desire, almost command, of a superior authority and therefore invalid-Authorised officer, held, could not to circumstances form an independent opinion on question and sanction granted was invalid vitiating trial. JUDGMENT Appellant Obaidul Haque was convicted by Mr. S. R. Karmakar, Assistant Sessions Judge and ex-officio Special Judge, Dacca under section 1.61, P. P. C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 400, in default to rigorous imprisonment for sir months. It was further directed that half of the fine, if realised will be paid to P. W. 1 Shiya Ram Poddar. The appellant was also convicted under section 5 (2) of Act II of 1947, but no separate sentence was passed under this section. The prosecution case is that the appellant was a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the Detective Branch, Dacca in the year 1963. He caused arrest of P. W. 1 Shiya Ram Poddar and his brother Obadh Lal two hand-cart drivers who were attached to Punjab Iron Safe Works of 4/11, English Road, Dacca on 21-4-62 in connection with Kotwali P. S. Case No. 9 of 1962 under section 457/380, P. P. C. The two arrested persons were forwarded to the Court from, which they were released on bail on 23-4-62. A few days thereafter the appellant is said to have sent for Shiya Ram Poddar and gave out to him that the final report in his case would be submitted if he paid the appellant Rs. 200. Shiya Ram Poddar reported the matter to P. W. 4 Abdul Wahab, Sales Manager of the Punjab Iron Safe Works and requested him to give a loan of Rs. 200. P. W. 4 promised to pay him the amount on 7-5-62. On the morning of 7-5-62 the appellant visited the shop and had talk with P. W. 1 when P. W. 4 told-the appellant that he would pay the money a few hours later, whereupon the…