Case Details

Citation(s)
1955 SLG 167 1955 SLD 167 1955 PLD 650
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 900 of 1954 decided on 22nd July, 1955 from the order of Qadir Bakhsh, Special Judge, Punjab, Lahore, dated the 30th November 1954
C. M. SHARIF, J
Muhammad Shah, for Appellant. A. S. Kirmani, for A. G. for
Respondent

MUHAMMAD SHARIF

VS

THE CROWN

Law: Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, (XIX of 1948)

Section: 5(5)proviso

Law: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947

Section: 6

(a) Criminal Law Amendment Act (XIX of 1948) (as amended by Acts (XXXVII of 1953 and IV of 1954)---- ------ S. 5 (5) proviso-Sanction in first instance obtained under S. 6, Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)-Case transferred to Special Judge under subsection (4) of S. 4 of Act XIX of 1948 (as amended)-New sanction not required after transfer. Sanctions for the prosecution of public servants which had already been given either by the appropriate authority specified in section 6 of Act II of 1947, or by the Central Government under subsection (5) of section 5 of Act XIX of 1948, (as it stood before amendment) are valid. The omission of section 6 of Act II of 1947 by Act XXXVII of 1953 was not intended to delete it with retro­spective effect. The language actually used makes it clear that the operation of the repeal was to be with future effect: the words are "shall be omitted". In the present case sanction had in the first instance been obtained under section 6, Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947). Subsequently, the case stood transferred to the Court of the Special judge under subsection (4) of section 4 of Act XIX of 1948 (as amended), It was argued by counsel for appellant that since section 6 of Act II of 1947 had lapsed by virtue of clause (e) of section 5 of Act XXXVII of 1953, new sanction was required under section 5 (5) of Act XIX of 1948 (as amended). Held, that the sanction obtained under section 6 of Act II of 1947 availed for the prosecution of the appellant before the Special Judge after transfer of the case to the latter Court. (b) Sanction for prosecution-Sanctioning authority described as "Deputy Commissioner" instead of ` Collector "-Error immaterial. When the authority sanctioning the prosecution was erroneously described as the "Deputy Commissioner " instead of the " Collector ", evidently by a clerk who typed the draft, the error was- held to be immaterial. (c) Fine------ -----Heavy amount should not be inflicted merely to cause accused to suffer substantial term of imprisonment on default. Where fine is beyond the means of an offender to pay, it ought not to be inflicted merely in order that a substantive period of imprisonment…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492