ABDUL RASHID Versus STATE

I had heard the learned counsel for the appellant at great length on previous date i.e. 13th April, 1982, when the learned counsel raised a point, that sanction Exh. 23 in Cr. Appeal No. 150/72 and sanction Exh. 57 in Cr. Appeal No. 151 /72, which were accorded by Superintendent of Police Headquarters, Karachi for prosecution of the appellant in both the cases, from which the above two appeals arise are invalid sanctions, as appellant was appointed A. S. I. on Ist October, 1953 by Inspector‑General of Police, Sind, under the Bombay District Police Manual and as such sanction for his prosecution under section 6 (5) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 could only have been granted by Authority, who was competent to remove him from service, but the present sanctions are not given by such Authority, which is evident from the facts of the above two appeals.

2. In view of the above technical legal objection taken by the learned counsel for the appellant, I issued notice to the Advocate‑General to assist this Court and in consequence of that notice,. Mr. Abdul Sattar Shaikh, Additional Advocate‑General is present today and states, that in view of admitted position by the State counsel, that the appellant was appointed as A. S. I. by the Inspector‑General of Police, Sind, on Ist October, 1953 under the Bombay District Police Manual, he could not have been removed by S. P. Headquarters, Karachi and as such the sanctions awarded in the present cases by the S. P. Headquarters, Karachi are not valid sanctions, under the provisions of section 6 (5) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, in view of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment (West Pakistan) Rule, 1962. According to rule 2 of the said Rules, an Officer competent to remove a public servant is only authorised by the Provincial Government to accord sanction under section 6 (5) of Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 and as such the learned Additional Advocate‑General submitted, that he agrees with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, that sanctions in both these cases, out of which these two appeals arise were not valid sanctions and as such the entire trial, which is based on these sanctions was vitiated and. therefore, the convictions and sentences awarded to the appellant cannot be sustained.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the State also confirms the above legal position.

4: In view of the above statements of the learned Additional Advocate‑General and the State counsel, and keeping in view the case of Rashid Ahmad v. State (P L D 1972 S C 271), 1 hold that proper sanctions were not accorded for prosecution of the present appellant in both the cases, out of which the above appeals arise and as such both the trials were without jurisdiction and of no effect. Therefore, I accept both the above appeals and set aside convictions and sentences awarded to the appellant by both the impugned judgments, which are challenged in the above appeals and A discharge the bail bonds executed by him. However, before parting with the above appeals, I would like to mention, that prosecution will be at liberty to try the appellant again, if it deems fit, after proper sanctions have been obtained, as required by section 6 (5) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958.

5. Both the above appeals stand disposed off, in terms of the above order.

Appeals allowed.