Case Details

Citation(s)
1999 SLG 65 1999 SLD 65 = 1999 PCRLJ 258

Criminal Miscellaneous Applications Nos.320 of 1995 and 103 of 1998, decided on 17th July, 1998.
Rana Bhagwan Das, J

ALI AKBAR- Applicant

VERSUS

THE STATE and 2 others---Respondents'

Law:

Section:

This order shall dispose of aforesaid two criminal miscellaneous applications filed under the provisions of section 561-A, Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of F.I.R. in Crime No.l of 1995 registered by Anti-Corruption Establishment Hyderabad and F.I.R. No.33 of 1997 registered by Anticorruption Establishment Dadu against the applicants on a charge under section 409, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) Act II of 1947.   Applicants are employed at Sub-Sale Centre Saeedabad and Piyaro Goth respectively in the Organisation established as Sindh Agriculture Supplies Organisation under the provisions of SASO Act X of 1973.   In fact only F.I.Rs. have been registered against the applicants employed in SASO and deemed to be public servants within the meaning of section 21 of the Pakistan Penal Code, by reason of section 20 of SASO Act, 1973. In F.I.R. No.l of 1995 applicant Ali Akbar was arrested by Anti -Corruption Establishment and released by the Court of Special Judge Anti -Corruption Hyderabad with regard to applicant Muhammad Azam, it is averred that Anti-Corruption police Dadu was making efforts for his arrest on the charge of criminal misappropriation and defalcation. Indeed prayer in both the applications is for quashment of proceedings arising out of above said F.I.Rs. but the learned counsel at the hearing consumed lot of valuable Court time on the premises that cases had been sent up before the Special Court which has no jurisdiction to proceed against the applicants for the reasons inter alia that the applicants are employed in an organization set up administered and controlled by the Provincial Government and not by Central Government. It is equally a matter of great regret that even the learned counsel for SASO as well as the State did not point out this fact during the course of hearing and the arguments proceeded on the misconceived notion that the prayers were directed against the proceedings pending before a Court having no jurisdiction to proceed against the applicants.   After having examined the R & Ps and the prayer clause in both the applications I have arrived at a conclusion that in fact the applicants desire interference of this Court in…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register