Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: KHAWAJA ZAKA ULLAH VS Respondent: THE STATE
P L D 1959 BaghdadulJadid 6
P L D 1959 Baghdad‑ul‑Jadid 6
Before Shabir Ahmad, J
Khawaja ZAKA ULLAH‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑Respondent
Case No. 25 of 1958, decided on 21st January 1959.
Sanction to prosecute---
---‑Facts constituting an offence triable without sanction also constituting offence not so triable‑Court not precluded from dealing with offence triable without sanction.
The circumstance that the facts which constitute an offence which can be tried without a sanction also constitute an offence which cannot be tried without sanction does not prohibit the Court from dealing with the former offence in spite of the fact that no sanction with regard to the latter offence is accorded.
The Crown v. Baboo Khan P L D 1952 Lah. 472 and The Crown v. Muhammad Hayat P L D 1954 Lah. 424 ref.
Petitioner in person.
Muhammad Salim Aslam Pirzada for the State.
ORDER
Khawaja Zaka Ullah, Deputy Superintendent, District Jail Bahawalnagar was summoned by the Additional District Magis trate Bahawalnagar to answer a charge under section 384 of the Pakistan Penal Code. He applied to the Sessions Judge for a recommendation to this Court that the proceedings under section 384, P. P. C. which had been started by means of a complaint instituted by Bagh Ali Shah be quashed and the learned Sessions Judge has sent a recommendation that the proceedings before the Magistrate be quashed.
2. The ground on which the learned Sessions Judge has made tile recommendation for quashing of the proceedings against Khawaja Zaka Ullah is that the facts disclose an offence under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 5 of the Bahawalpur Prevention of Corruption Act, 1951 and as these offences cannot be tried without sanction of the Government, the proceedings under section 384, P. P. C. should be terminated. I am of the view that the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge, on the point is incorrect. The circumstance that the facts which constitute an offence which can be tried without a sanction also constitute an offence which cannot be tried without sanction does not prohibit the Courts from dealing with the former offence inspite of the fact that no sanction with regard to the latter' offence is accorded. Consequently I decline to accept the recommendation which runs contrary to two decisions to which I was a party namely The Crown v. Baboo Khan (P L D 1952 Lah. 472) and The Crown v. Muhammad Hayat (P L D 1954 Lah. 424).
3 It was urged by, Khawja Zaka Ullah that the evidence relied upon by the A. D. M. for issuing summons to him was unreliable. I am not dealing with that aspect of the matter in this case and ; will, therefore, say nothing with regard to this contention. The petition is dismissed.
K. B. A./A. H. Petition dismissed.