Case Details

Citation(s)
1958 SLG 4095 = 1958 SLD 4095 = 1958 PLD 86
WEST PAKISTAN, KARACHI
Criminal Revision Application No. 57 of 1956, decided on 9th October 1957.
Presented By: LARI, J
Tarachand A7adhumal v. Emperor A I R 1944 Sind 130 and Munshi Noor Ahmad and others v. Malik Abdul Rehman PLD 1957 BJ 10 fol.   Hamidul Haq Choudhry for Applicant.   Ishaq Ahmad for the Opponent.  

Sheikh ABDUL MAJID-Applicant  

VERSUS

  THE STATE-Opponent

Law: Pakistan Special Police Establishment Ordinance (VIII of 1948)

Section: 3

Law: Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance (XV of 1949)

Section: 420,408

Pakistan Special Police Establishment Ordinance (VIII of 1948), S. 3-Special Police not debarred from submitting challan to a Magistrate.  Crown v. Mehar Ali P L D 1956 F C 106 rel.   Investigation-Mere irregularity in investigation --Legality of proceeding not affected.   The Special Police Establishment investigated a case against an accused who was not a Government servant. The accused contended that the Special Police Establishment was not competent to inquire into the alleged offence Held, that a mere irregularity in investigation did not affect the legality of proceedings before the Magistrate.   Sanction--- Two offences : one not cognizable being without sanction-Magistrate whether precluded from trying other offence as well-Test for determining when sanction necessary -Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance (X V of 1949), Ss. 24, 32-Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420 & 408.   Where two distinct offences are disclosed on the face of a complaint oil, of which being under section 24 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1949, cannot be tried without sanction, the Magistrate is not precluded from trying the other offence which is under section 420 of the P. P. C. simply because the first cannot be taken cognizance of without prior sanction.   The test in suck cases is whether primarily and essentially the allegations made would pertain to an offence which cannot be tried without sanction of the prescribed authority.   Where the accused, an allottee of a Cinema, in violation of the terms of allotment, converted the Cinema into shops and sublet them to shopkeepers from whom he obtained, by underhand means, money which he misappropriated and the accused was charged under sections 408 and 420 of the P. P. C. but he contended that the offence fell within the purview of section 24 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1949 and, therefore, it could not be tried without sanction of the prescribed authority.   Held, that the main offence which was alleged against the accused was one under section 420, P. P. C. and the allegations which could…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register