1. The brief facts giving rise to the institution of this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Are that the petitioner was a public servant and against him, a report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Was submitted for the commission of offence under section 4(Y), P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. After the receipt of the report under section 173, Cr.P.C., the learned Special Judge took the cognizance of the case and summoned the prosecution evidence. After recording the entire prosecution evidence, having examined the petitioner under section 342, Cr.P.C. And also after recording the defence evidence, it transpired that the complaint was not accompanied with necessary sanction so as to clothe the Court concerned with necessary jurisdiction to decide the case.
2. Accordingly, the learned Special Judge, at that stage, wrote a letter seeking sanction of the appropriate authorities and in due course of time, the requisite sanction was received.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that all proceedings taken before the receipt of the sanction are without jurisdiction and, therefore, the same merits to be quashed. In support of this contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by my learned brother Khizar Hayat, J. In Criminal Revision No.223 of 1988.
4. The relevant provision contained in section 6(5) of Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 is as follows:-- "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 or in any other law, previous sanction of the appropriate Government shall be required for the prosecution of a public servant for an offence under this Act and such sanction shall be sufficient for the prosecution of a public servant for an offence triable under this Act: Provided that in cases where the complaint or report referred to in subsection (1) of section 4 is not accompanied by such sanction, the Special Judge shall, immediately on receipt of the complaint or report, address, by letter, the appropriate Government in the matter and if the required sanction is -neither received nor refused within sixty days of the receipt of the letter by the appropriate Government, such sanction shall be deemed to have been duly accorded: Provided further that no such sanction shall be required in respect of a case transferred under the proviso to subsection (3) of section 4 or by virtue of subsection (3) or subsection (4) of section 5, if such sanction in respect thereof, has been duly accorded before the case is so transferred.
5. Explanation: For the purpose of this subsection, `appropriate Government' shall mean the Government which at the time of the commission of the offence was the appropriate Government."
6. The perusal of the above provision clearly indicates that the sanction is necessary to proceed in a case by way of taking cognizance. The clause is mandatory and in such like matters, this clause is to be construed strictly in the light of the above provision of law. After examining the judgment delivered in Criminal Revision No.223 of 1988, I am of the view that all proceedings taken in this case prior to the receipt of sanction are without jurisdiction and nullity and, therefore, the same are hereby quashed.
7. Resultantly, I hold that the case will still alive and the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Is now accompanied with the necessary sanction and, therefore, the Special Judge, is directed to commence the trial forthwith in this case.
8. With these observations, this petition is disposed of.