Muhammad Ghaus and Abdul Latif (hereinafter called the respondents) were tried by the learned Special Judge (Central), Lahore, in case F. I. R. No. 58, dated 4th August, 1966, under sections 409, 420, 468 and 471/109, P. P. C. On the allegation that Muhammad Ghaus respondent who at the relevant time, was employed as a school-teacher in village Bucheki and was holding additional charge of Branch Postmaster, prepared a bogus withdrawal form of Rs. 1,500 in respect of Account No. 43865 of one Muhammad Tufail, Account-holder in Post Office Bucheki, and in collusion with Abdul Latif respondent, a colleague teacher, who attested the said form, withdrew an amount of Rs.
1;500 from the said post-office and misappropriated the same. Muhammad Ghaus respondent was alsd tried under sections 409, 420, 468 and 471, P. P. C. On similar allegations in three other cases arising out of the same F. I. R. The cases were at argument stage before the learned Special Judge (Central) when the learned counsel for Muhammad Ghaus respondent raised an objection that since the aforementioned respondent was an employee of the Education Department of the Provincial Government, sanction for prosecution was necessary but the same having not been obtained, the trials were vitiated. In the first-mentioned case the learned Special Judge (Central) observed that both the respondents were public servants working under the Education Department of the Provincial Department, therefore, sanction of the Provincial Government was necessary and they should have been tried by the learned Special Judge, Anti- Corruption, Punjab. He also upheld the objection in other cases and sent all the cases to the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Punjab, for disposal directing the respondents to appear before him on the 2nd of August, 1977.
2. The learned Senior Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Punjab, was of the view that Muhammad Ghaus respondent committed the offence in his capacity as employee of the Central Government and Abdul Latif respondent abetted the offence not as a Provincial employee but as a private individual. He further observed that since "Muhammad Ghaus ceased to be Postmaster, no sanction for his prosecution was necessary.- The cases were again placed before the learned Special Judge (Central) who, by his order dated 3rd December, 1977 returned the challans to the prosecution with the observation that sanction for prosecution from the Provincial Government was necessary for the trial of Muhammad Ghaus respondent and the proper forum was the Court of Special Judge. Punjab. The State has filed Criminal Revisions Nos. 716, 717, 718 and 719 of 1978 to question the correctness and propriety of the aforesaid orders. Muhammad Ghaus respondent has filed Criminal Misc. Nos. 957-M, 958-M, 959-M and 960-M of 1979 praying that the proceedings against him may be quashed. All these matters shall be disposed of by this judgment.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Abdul Latif respondent abetted the commission of offence as a private individual and Muhammad Ghaus respondent in his capacity as Branch Postmaster and since his services as such were terminated by the Postal Authorities before the submission of challans, no sanction for prosecution of either of them was necessary. On behalf of the respondents it was submitted that at the time of taking cognizance of the offences by the Court they were employees of the Education Department of the Provincial Government and are still working as school teachers, therefore, sanction of the Provincial Government is necessary.
Relying on Muhammad Bashir v. The Crown (I) the learned counsel for Muhammad Ghaus respondent further aubtnitted that the mere fact that the said respondent was doing the additional job as Branch Postmaster would not change the position and sanction of the Provincial Government having not been obtained, the proceedings in all the cases deserve to be quashed.
4. The ruling cited by the learned counsel for Muhammad Ghaus respondent has no application to the facts of this case. In the said case the accused, a Revenue Patwari, was performing certain duties in connection with the allotment of lands in addition to his normal duties under the Punjab Land Revenue Act. He was prosecuted for obtaining illegal gratification from the complainant for helping him so that the new
(1) PLD 1955 Lab. 661 allottee would not be able to take the crop of the land which previously stood allotted to his father.
It was contended that at the relevant time the Patwari was serving in connection with the affairs of the Federation, therefore, sanction of the Federal Government for his prosecution was necessary.
The contention was repelled with the observation that the duties of a Patwari regarding rehabilitation work, it appears, are imposed not by the instructions issued by the Rehabilitation Commissioner under clause (23) of the Scheme but by certain letters of the Punjab Government to which reference is made in the said instructions. It was further observed :- -The Patwari as already stated is an employee of the Provincial Government. He is a creature of the Punjab Land Revenue Act and performs certain duties under it. Under directions from the Provincial Government he is performing certain duties in connection with allotments which are in addition to his duties under the Punjab Land Revenue Act. But the only authority which the Punjab Government has to issue directions to the Patwaris is (in the absence of some statutory provision) under the Punjab Land Revenue Act. If the instructions be legal and valid under that Act, the work which the Patwari performs in connection with the allotment of the land will not be in connection with the affairs of the Federation."
5. The cases in hand proceed on different facts altogether. Muhammad Ghaus respondent was employed as a Branch Postmaster under the orders of the Postal Authorities, he was paid by the Federal Government for that job and his services were terminated by the Postal Authorities, therefore, to all intent and purposes he was an employee of the Central Government so far as the duties of the Branch Postmaster were concerned. The offences allegedly committed by him relate to his A conduct as Branch Postmaster and for the purpose of determination of the proper forum, his status as a school teacher is not at all relevant. It is admitted that his services as Branch Postmaster were terminated long before the submission of the challans, therefore, no sanction for prosecution was necessary. Abdul Latif respondent committed the offences as a private individual and not as a school-teacher, therefore, no sanction was required in his case as well.
6. For the foregoing reason Criminal Revisions Nos. 716 to 719 of 1978 are allowed and Criminal Misc.
Nos. 957, 958, 959 and 960 of 1979 are dismissed. The impugned orders are set aside and the learned Special Judge (Central) is directed to proceed ahead with the cases in accordance with law..