1. The applicant who is facing trial under sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 477-A read. With section 34, P. P.
2. C. And section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 in the Court of Special Judge Central Karachi, has moved this application for quashment of the proceedings on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter as no proper sanction was accorded by the concerned department nor was the same legally presumed, by the trial Court.
3. It is contended by the applicant that no sanction for prosecution was received by the Court and the Special Judge addressed a letter to the Govern--ment of Pakistan, Ministry of Interior in the Interior Division and on the expiry of 60 days, the sanction was presumed and the trial started. It is further contended that the respondents 2 to 4 were serving in the Directorate of National Savings, Hyderabad in the year 1977 and the aforesaid Directorate is under the Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad which was the appropriate Ministry for giving sanction for the prosecution of the aforesaid persons and, therefore, the learned Special Judge should have addressed the letter to that Ministry and not to the Ministry of Interior which could not in any case give proper sanction. It is, therefore, further argued that the addressing of letter to the wrong Ministry cannot give rise to the presumption after expiry of 60 days as provided by the law, that the sanction is granted. The plea has, therefore, been raised that the whole trial is vitiated as under the law it is for the authority concerned to decide whether to pro--secute the Government servants in a Court of law or to take any other action. Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid, the learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the decisions of this Court in Criminal Appeals Nos. 52 of 1975 and 231 of 1979. In both the aforesaid appeals the trial Court has addressed the Ministry of Interior and after having waited for 60 days had come to the view that sanction should be presumed to be granted although the appropriate authorities for according sanction were the Ministry of Finance in one case and Ministry of Communications in the other case. It was held by this Coin in those two appeals that since the sanction for prosecution had not been sought from the competent authority there was no justification in law drawing presumption under section 6(5) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amend--ment Act, 1958.
4. In Muhammad Ibrahim v. The State (1976 P Cr. L J 1441), a decision of the Lahore High Court when challan against the accused, a Government servant was put in th,: Court without obtaining sanction for prosecution and the trial Court wrote to Ministry of Home for according requisite sanction although accused was employee of Ministry of Defence, and on receiving no reply for statutory period of 60 days considered the sanction to have been accorded ; it was held that sanction for prosecution not having been sought from the competent authority the Court was not justified in drawing presumption under section 6(5) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958.
5. Similarly in Muhammad Tufail v. The State (1980 P Cr. L J 1206), a decision of this Court when accused was working in Postal Department and his relevant authority was the Ministry of Communications but the trial Judge wrote to Secretary Ministry of Interior and after having waited for 60 days deemed the sanction to be granted, it was held that since the competent authority had not been addressed the failure on the part of the Government to reply such letter could not be deemed as sanction.
6. In view of the legal position discussed above, since the letter was m addressed to the Ministry of Finance for getting sanction against respondent 2 to 4 but was addressed to the Ministry of Interior the sanction for prosecution of respondents 2 to 4 after waiting of statutory period of 60 days deemed be deemed to have been granted. The trial proceedings, therefore, stand be vitiated and are hereby ordered to be quashed. However, the accused can proceeded against in case the prosecution desires to do so after obtaining proper sanction from the appropriate authority.