MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Aslam, a clerk in the office of the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore, challenging his conviction and sentence under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which was earlier upheld by the High Court. The core legal question raised was whether the Provincial Government had the lawful authority to accord sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner, given the contention that he was an employee of the Central Government and that the notification purporting to provincialize the Settlement Department had never come into force. The Supreme Court observed that the Additional Advocate-General was unable to place the relevant notification on record and required further time for research. Consequently, the Court held that a fit case was made out to grant leave to consider the question regarding the validity of the prosecution sanction. The Court accordingly granted leave to appeal subject to security for costs.
- Whether the Provincial Government is competent to grant sanction for the prosecution of an employee belonging to the Settlement Department?
- Does a failure by the State to produce the notification provincializing a department warrant the grant of leave to appeal regarding prosecution sanction?
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J. ‑‑Muhammad Aslam petitioner who was a clerk in the office of Settlement Commissioner, Lahore, was tried and convicted under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to 9 months' R.I. with a fine of Rs.100. His appeal against his sentence and conviction was dismissed by the High Court.
Hence the present petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that although the prosecution case suffered from serious defects inasmuch as the petitioner was an employee of the Central Government (in the Settlement Department) sanction for his prosecution was given by the Provincial Government. It was urged by the learned Additional Advocate‑General that on 9‑2‑1982 when the offence was committed the Settlement Department has already become a Provincial Department by a certain notification and as such the Provincial Government was authorized to accord sanction for prosecution of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted in reply that the notification referred to by the learned Additional Advocate‑General, never came into force and the Settlement Department was still a Central Government Department.
5. We adjourned the matter to enable the learned Additional Advocate‑General to place on record the above noted notification but he was unable to do so and required considerable time for research in this matter with the help of the officials of the Settlement Department.
6. Under these circumstances we think the proper course is to grant leave to consider the question raised by the petitioner's counsel. Leave is, therefore, granted for the said purpose.
Security for costs in the sum of Rs.1,000 (Rupees one thousand only).
7. To be heard on the same record with permission to file additional documents.
M.I. Leave granted.