MUHAMMAD WAZIR vs The STATE
The petitioner, a Forest Guard, challenged his conviction under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, which had been upheld by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the sanction for prosecution was invalid due to the sanctioning authority's alleged failure to apply its mind or to seek an explanation from the accused prior to granting sanction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the sanction order clearly demonstrated on its face that the authority had applied its mind to the facts of the case. The Court established the principle that a sanctioning authority is not legally required to obtain or solicit an explanation from an accused person before granting sanction for prosecution. Consequently, the challenge to the validity of the sanction was rejected, and the conviction was maintained, as the prosecution case had been fully proved by the lower courts based on the evidence presented.
- Is it a legal requirement for a sanctioning authority to obtain an explanation from an accused person before granting sanction for prosecution?
- Does a sanction order that shows on its face that the authority applied its mind to the facts satisfy the requirements for a valid prosecution sanction?
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. M. R. KHAN, J.--The petitioner who was a Forest Guard, Muzzaffargarh was tried on a charge under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1,947. His co-accused Ahmad Bakhsh was tried along with him on a charge of theft and abetment of criminal misappropriation. The Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Multan, convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Ahmad Bakhsh was convicted under section 409 read with section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100.
2. The petitioner preferred an appeal in the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, against his conviction and sentence but Ahmad Bakhsh did not file any appeal. A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appeal on merits. The charge against the petitioner was that he and his co-- accused cut a large branch of a shisham tree standing on the Multan-Muzzaffargarh Road, transported that branch on a donkey-- cart of P. W. 4 Ghulam Qadir to the saw-mill of P. W. 5 Habib. Having come to know of this incident, the police went to the saw-mill and seized the timber, but the two accused made good their escape in the meantime. After obtaining the necessary sanction for prosecution, the petitioner was placed on trial along with his co-accused. . Both the Courts below have found on the evidence that the prosecution case was fully proved. The petitioner's appeal in the High Court was eventually dismissed. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sanction given in this case for the prosecution of the petitioner is not a proper sanction, because the sanctioning authority did not properly apply his mind and that he did not ascertain if the petitioner had any explanation to offer. There is no substance in this contention. The order sanctioning prosecution which is at page 31 of the paper- book shows on the face of it that the sanctioning authority did, in fact, apply his mind to facts of this case. It was not necessary for him to obtain any explanation from the accused or even to ascertain if he had any explanation to offer.
4. The petition is dismissed.