| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1956 SLG 44 1956 SLD 44 1956 PLD 81 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 884 of 1954 decided on 25th July, 1955, from the order of Qadir Bakhsh, Special Judge, Punjab, Lahore, dated the 25th November, 1954
B. Z. KAIKAUS, J
Syed Mohsin Shah, for Appellant. Sh. Maqbul Ahmad, for the Advocate-General for
Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 884 of 1954 decided on 25th July, 1955, from the order of Qadir Bakhsh, Special Judge, Punjab, Lahore, dated the 25th November, 1954
B. Z. KAIKAUS, J
Syed Mohsin Shah, for Appellant. Sh. Maqbul Ahmad, for the Advocate-General for
Respondent
A. R. MASUD ALVI
VS
THE CROWN
Law: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Section: 5,5(2),6,1(3)
(a) Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947), S. 5.--Still in force. On behalf of the appellant who was convicted under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), it was argued that section 5 of the Act was to be in force originally only for three years under section 1 (3) of the Act, and that although this. time-limit was done away with in 1950 by an amending Act, the amending Act was passed by the Federal Legislature which, it was said, was not properly constituted. Held, in view of the of their Lordships of the Federal Court in Federation of Pakistan v. Ali Ahmad Shah P L D 1955 F C 522 and the Governor General's Ordinance XVI of 1955 validating the Constituent Assembly Increase and Redistribution of Seats Acts, this objection had no force. Section 5 of the Act was therefore still in force. (b) Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), -----S. 6 Sanction for prosecution-No obligation on Officer granting sanction to make a personal enquiry before doing so. Although an Officer granting sanction for prosecution should apply his mind to facts of the case, section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not make a personal enquiry before grant of sanction essential. The statement that A is "said" to have accepted illegal gratification would only mean that that was the charge against A. The document must be read as a whole. A sanction need not specifically state that there is a prima facie case against the public servant concerned. Sanction is not defective merely on the ground that it was granted on basis of a report. JUDGMENT KAIKAUS, J.-This is an appeal by one A. R. Masud Alvi, who was convicted by a Special judge of an offence under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine pf Rs.1,000 or in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant was employed as a Government Food Inspector and was posted at Layallpur. Amongst his duties as Food Inspector was included the prevention of adulteration in milk so that he had to take samples of milk and send them to the Public Analyst and in case the milk was found to be…
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