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

Section: S. 4(1). & 6(5) proviso

Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act (XL of 1958), S. 4(1). & 6(5) proviso--Special Judge taking cognizance "on complaint" by private person, of case under S. 161, Penal Code (XLV of 1860) read with S. 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)--- Legality of cognizance doubted-Special Judge in any case not competent to hold "preliminary inquiry" in terms of S. 202, Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) and decide to proceed against a certain accused and drop the others-Such inquiry held, 'in excess of jurisdic tion-Special Judge to address appropriate Government for grant of sanction for prosecution, and thereafter to proceed against or drop any accused as he deems fit.     JUDGMENT   This is a criminal revision against the order of Mr. Ghulam Hyder K. S. Pir, Special Judge Central, Karachi, dated the 13th of January, 1962. By this order the learned Special Judge held that the allegations made by the petitioner in the complaint before him were false against Azizul Hasan Ghori, respondent No. 2, and Muhammad Salim, respondent No. 4, in respect of the alleged demand of bribe. He further found, the allegations against Abdul Rashid Bhatti, respondent No. 3, to be prima facie correct and sought sanction from the Central Government for his prosecution under section 5(2) of Act II of 1947 read with Criminal Law (Amendment) Act-No. XL of 1958.   The petitioner, who was Post Master at Naushehro Feroz Post Office in the month of October, 1960, was anxious to get himself transferred to another Post office where he could earn a number of late fees by working late hours. He asked Muhammad Salim, respondent No. 3, who was working under him as a clerk and whom he knew to be a friend of Abdul Rashid Bhatti, respondent No. 2, to get the petitioner transferred to some good station. It is alleged that Muhammad Salim promised to help the petitioner. He later on informed the petitioner that respondent No. 2 had promised to arrange for his transfer provided he pays Rs. 200 to respondent No. 1. The petitioner alleged that after a good deal of difficulty he was transferred to Moro Post Office and thereupon respondent No. 1 demanded…