| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1958 SLG 55 1958 SLD 55 1958 PLD 853 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petitions No. 147 of 1957 (Peshawar Bench) and No. 61 of 1958 (Lahore), decided on 16th May 1958. DATE of hearing : 14th April 1958.
M. R. KAYANI, C.J., B. Z. KAIKAUS AND MASUD AHMAD, JJ
Peer Bakhsh Khan for Petitioner. M. Anwar, A.A.G. for
Respondents.
Writ Petitions No. 147 of 1957 (Peshawar Bench) and No. 61 of 1958 (Lahore), decided on 16th May 1958. DATE of hearing : 14th April 1958.
M. R. KAYANI, C.J., B. Z. KAIKAUS AND MASUD AHMAD, JJ
Peer Bakhsh Khan for Petitioner. M. Anwar, A.A.G. for
Respondents.
MUHAMMAD BASHIR
VS
(1) THE PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN through the Secretary to Government of West Pakistan, Home Department and (2) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, PESHAWARs
Law: General Clauses Act, 1897
Section: 6
(a) Frontier Crimes Regulation (111 of 1901), Ss. 11 and 12-Sentence passed before, but confirmed after coming into force of Constitution-Order of confirmation invalid -Sentence set aside-Accused may be tried under ordinary law-General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 6-Inapplicable-Invalidity not equivalent to repeal of provision. After a finding of the Council of Elders, the petitioner was convicted by the Deputy 'Commissioner under S. 302, P. P. C. and sentenced to 14 years' rigorous imprisonment on 14th March 1956. This sentence was, under the provisions of S. 12 of the Frontier Crimes Regulation (111 of 1901), subject to confirmation by the Commissioner who confirmed it on 28th July 1956. Mean while, the new Constitution had come into force on the 23rd March 1956, by Articles 4 and 5 of which Ss. 11 and 12 of the Regulation had been rendered invalid. Held (Per Kayani, C. J.) that the petitioner's sentence could not be confirmed under section 12 and that, consequently, it was invalid. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced under a valid law, but before the sentence could be confirmed by the Commissioner, the entire procedure culminating in confirmation became invalid, with the result that confirmation took place under a law which was invalid. It is no consolation, therefore, that up to a certain stage the proceeding was valid, because in that state it was not executable. In order that S. 6, General Clauses Act (X of 1897) should have effect, the case must be expressly one of repeal, and it is not enough that it should be analogous to repeal. When the Legislature repeals an enactment, it does so consciously, but when it says in a particular statute that any existing law which is inconsistent with that statute shall be void to the extent of inconsistency, it is contemplating a possible conflict, and is not necessarily contemplating a repeal, and therefore the contemplation of any saving clause is out of the question. There being no vested right in procedure, the a is no corresponding liability, and if that procedure is rendered void by the Constitution, it must be abandoned immediately in favour of the procedure which is valid. The petitioner, therefore,…
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