10. Sanction for prosecution-Appellant though public servant, not entrusted with goods as public servant but as agent of welfare society-Some shortage of goods taken as “trade loss” by higher authorities of committee-Held question of being entrusted with property in his capacity of a public servant and dishonestly misappropriation not to arise in circumstances-Further held, there being no basis for grant of sanction of prosecution of appellant as a public servant, order was void altogether and without lawful authority. P L J 1981 Cr. C. (Lahore) 356 Refusal of sanction for prosecution and subsequent grant of sanction–Effect of–Circle officer admitted in his cross-examination that Committee No.III had refused sanction and instead departmental enquiry was ordered, but subsequently sanction was obtained from Committee No.II–Decision of earlier Committee was conveyed to Police which is evident from fact that Anti-Corruption Police applied for review to Committee No.II–Held: Decisive step having already been taken by Committee No.III, Committee No.II could not revise earlier order–Held further: Since grant of sanction for trial of appellant was illegal, his prosecution before Special Judge, Anti-Corruption also became illegal–Appeal accepted. PLJ 1994 Cr.C.(Karachi) 171 Refused by competent authority—Orders of refusal cannot be revised/reviewed by competent authority—Proceedings quashed under S. 561-A, Criminal P.C
This site is protected by wp-copyrightpro.com
Translate »Copy Protected by Chetan's WP-Copyprotect.