' Muhammad Sharif appellant was tried by Rao Iqbal Ahmad Khan, Special Judge, Anti-Corruption with the allegation that he had demanded and accepted illegal gratification in January, 1977 from M/s. Hashmat Ali, Muhammad Siddique and Khurshid Rs,3,000, Rs,1,500 and Rs,2,000, respectively and thus committed crimes punishable under section 161, P.P.C. And section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and after the conclusion he was convicted under section 161, P.P.C. And sentenced to three months' R.I. And a fine of Rs,3,000. He .Was also convicted under section 5(2) of P.CA. And sentenced to three months' R.I. And a fine of Rs,3,000. In the event of failure to pay fine of Rs,6;000, he was rendered liable to undergo three months' R.I. Both the substantive sentences were to, run concurrently. The learned Special Judge passed the judgment when he held the retrial of the appellant because earlier he was convicted on 1-11-1981 by the learned predecessor of the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption and was convicted to one year's R.I. And a fine of Rs,7,000.
This Court set aside that judgment in an appeal filed by the appellant and remanded back the case for fresh trial.
2. The present appeal is filed against the second judgment passed by Rao Iqbal Ahmad Khan, learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption on 5-2-1987.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant without touching the merits of the case at the very outset took up the plea that the trial held by the learned trial Court is vitiated as the entire evidence was written by Rao Iqbal Ahmad Khan, learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore despite the fact that he had never remained Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Gujranwala Division, eversince its establishment with effect from 1-7-1982, to which the case pertained territorially. In this connection he has referred to section 4 of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 wherein territorial jurisdiction of the Special Judges has been prescribed and he also referred the number of notifications issued by the Provincial Government from time to time. The learned counsel submitted that Rao Iqbal Ahmad Khan, the learned trial Judge had no jurisdiction to try the case so the conviction and sentence passed on the evidence recorded by him was illegal and the same should be set aside.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State conceded to this proposition.
5. After the perusal of the copies of the relevant notifications I am inclined to agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant that Rao Iqbal Ahmad Khan, Special Judge Anti-Corruption had no jurisdiction to try the, case giving rise to this appeal because it pertains to the territorial jurisdiction of Gujranwala Division and he had never been posted as Special Judge Anti-Corruption of that Division. Section 4 of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 is very clear on the point that Special Judge shall have jurisdiction within such territorial limits as may be fixed by the Provincial Government by notification in the official Gazette. The notification of the appointment of Rao Iqbal Ahmad Khan as Special Judge Anti-Corruption has also been looked into which specifies the territorial jurisdiction to the extent of Lahore Division only and District Sialkot falls in Gujranwala Division since 1-7-1982 so the learned trial Court had no jurisdiction to decide this case on 5-2-1987 when Sialkot was no more in Lahore Division.
6. Resultantly the portion of the evidence recorded by the learned trial Court of this case was without lawful authority and the appellant's conviction based on that evidence recorded by him was illegal.
7. Therefore, the appeal is accepted and the conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption (Provincial), Gujranwala Division for retrial on and from the stage the illegality crept in. In other words he shall re-record the evidence recorded by Rao Iqbal Ahmad Khan, learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption and decide the case afresh in accordance with law.
8. The appellant during retrial shall remain on bail but he shall file fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge within a fortnight.