JAVID IQBAL Versus STATE
This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 30-6-1986 passed by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore (Camp Sialkot) whereby he convicted the appellant under section 61, P.P.C. for accepting Rs.100 as illegal gratification and sentenced him to six months' R.I. with a fine of Rs.500. He was also convicted under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and was sentenced to six months' R.I. with a fine of Rs500. In default of payment of fine of Rs.1,000, he was directed to undergo three months' R.I. more. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant without going into the merits of the case raised a preliminary objection, in that, he contended that Rao Iqbal Ahmed Khan was posted as Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore and had no jurisdiction to try the cases pertaining to Gujranwala Division of which Sialkot District forms a part. In support of this plea, the learned counsel for the appellant referred to section 4(1) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, which reads as follows:---
"4(1). A Special Judge shall have jurisdiction within such territorial limits as may be fixed by the appropriate Government by notification in the official Gazette and may take cognizance of any offence committed or deemed to have been committed within such limits and triable under this Act upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence or upon a report in writing of such facts made by any Police Officer."
Learned counsel placed reliance on an unreported judgment of this Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 1987, wherein it was held that the recording of evidence by a Special Judge who had not been notified for the District to which the case pertained, was not a lawfully recorded evidence. In that case, learned Single Judge of this Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant and remanded the case.
3. After the perusal of the copies of the relevant notifications, I am inclined to agree with the contentions' of the learned counsel for the appellant that Rao Iqbal Ahmed Khan, Special Judge, Anti-Corruption had no jurisdiction to try the case giving rise to this appeal because it pertains to the territorial jurisdiction of Gujranwala Division and he had never been posted as Special Judge, Anti-Corruption of that Division.
4. In this case the charge-sheet was framed on 27-10-1985 and the Government of the Punjab in the Home Department vide Notification No. 9(1) S.O. (B&C)/80, dated 18-10-1982 under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 fixed the jurisdiction of various learned Special Judges in the Province of the Punjab. Two Special Judges were posted at Lahore and the area of their jurisdiction was Lahore Division. One Special Judge was posted at Gujranwala with the area of jurisdiction as Gujranwala Division. Two Special Judges, posted at Lahore were Sh. Saeed Ahmad, Senior Special Judge and Rao Iqbal Ahmed Khan, Special Judge. Sh. Lutfur Rehman was posted as a Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Gujranwala Division. He was appointed as such by the Government of Punjab vide Notification No.9(1)S.O.(B&C)/80, dated 20-7-1983 under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 19M with his Headquarters at Lahore, with effect from the date, he took over, and was authorised to hear the cases of Gujranwala and Lahore. Divisions. By this Notification the Government of the Punjab shifted the Headquarters of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Gujranwala at Lahore and also gave him the additional jurisdiction of Lahore Division. In these circumstances, it is clear that Rao Muhammad Iqbal Ahmed Khan, the learned trial Judge vide his notification of his appointment was appointed as Special Judge Anticorruption for Lahore Division only and District Sialkot falls in Gujranwala Division since 1-7-1982 so he had no jurisdiction to decide this case on 30-6-1986 when Sialkot was no more in the Lahore Division.
5. Resultantly the portion of the evidence recorded by the learned trial Court of this case was without lawful authority and the appellant's conviction based on that evidence recorded by him was, therefore, illegal.
6. The impugned judgment was, therefore, delivered without jurisdiction, the same is set aside and while accepting the appeal the conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial) Gujranwala Division for re-trial on and from the stage the illegality crept in. In other words he shall re-record the evidence recorded by Rao Iqbal Ahmed Khan, learned Special Judge Anticorruption and decide the case afresh in accordance with law.
7. The appellant during re-trial shall remain on bail but he shall file fresh bail bond in the sum.of Rs. 50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge within a fortnight from the date of this order.
N.H.Q./J-61/L Case remanded.