| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1962 SLG 473 1962 SLD 473 1962 PLD 277 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeals Nos. 87 and 88 of 1961, decided on 24th April 1962.
S. A. RAHMAN, FAZLE-AKBAR, B. Z. KAIKAUS
M. Ismail Bhati Advocate Supreme Court instructed by IftikharudDin Ahmad Attorney for Appellant. Aftab Hussain Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Siddiq & Co. Attorneys on behalf of NazirudDin Attorney on-Record for
Respondent.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 87 and 88 of 1961, decided on 24th April 1962.
S. A. RAHMAN, FAZLE-AKBAR, B. Z. KAIKAUS
M. Ismail Bhati Advocate Supreme Court instructed by IftikharudDin Ahmad Attorney for Appellant. Aftab Hussain Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Siddiq & Co. Attorneys on behalf of NazirudDin Attorney on-Record for
Respondent.
THE STATE--Appellant
VS
SAEED AHMAD--Respondent
Law:
Section:
(a) Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act (XL of 1958)---------Ss. 6 (5) & 14 (2)-Case, pending before Magistrate, transferred to Special Judge's Court under S. 4, Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act (X of 1948)-Sanction for prosecution -Case validly pending before Special Judge at time of coming into force of Act XL of 1958-Such pending proceedings not invalidated even though without sanction. Where the case was validly pending before a Special Judge having been transferred from the Court of a Magistrate under section 4, Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1948, and at the time of the coming into force of the Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958, it was so pending, even though the case was without any sanction: Held, that the Act of 1958, did not invalidate proceedings in such a case. By section 4 of the Act of 1948, as amended cases relating to Second Schedule which were already pending before a Court other than the Court of a Special Judge stood automatically transferred to the Court of the Special Judge and for such cases sanction was unnecessary. The cases against the respondent bad been transferred by virtue of section 4 (4) of the Act of 1948 as amended in 1953, in and according to the proviso to section 6 (5) no sanction was needed in such cases. In accordance with section 14 (2) of the Act of 1958, the transfer was deemed to have taken place under the Act of 1958 and the validity conferred on the proceedings by the proviso to section 6 (5) was deemed to have been conferred by the Act of 1958. The policy of the Legislature consistently bas been that it does not apply the provision as to sanction to pending proceedings. In 1953, when the Special Judge was given exclusive jurisdiction over certain offences and all proceedings relating to those offences were transferred to Special Judges a provision was made that such proceedings would not require sanction. The same thing happened when the Act of 1958, was enacted. Sanction is ordinarily a condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings and it will be unusual to require sanction for "continuing" a validly initiated proceeding. (b) Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act (XL of…
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