1. ' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted:--
(1) That the cognizance of the case under section 124-A, P.P.C. Could only be taken on a complaint instituted by the Provincial Government, but as the Provincial Government had specifically not examined the case or taken any decision to file the complaint regarding the occurrence in question, legally therefore there was no complaint.
(2) That by virtue of Articles 138 and 268(3) & (6) of the Pakistan Constitution, 1973, unless the Provincial Assembly, on the recommendation of the Provincial Government, had by law conferred functions on officers or authorities subordinate to the Provincial Government, section 1%, Cr.P.C.
2. Could not authorise the Provincial Government to empower any officer on its behalf to make a complaint under section 124-A P.P.C. In this view of the matter, section 1% Cr.P.C. Is ultra vires of the Constitution.
(3) That even assuming, for a matter of argument, that the Punjab Government, Home Department's Notification dated 18-3-1989 is treated as having been validly issued, it cannot be general in nature but has to be specific and therefore should be struck down. See Muhammad Khan v. Government of West Pakistan PLD 1960 (W.P.)
3. Lah. 434; Fazal-i-Raziq v. Riaz Ahmad PLD 1978 Lah. 1082 and Gokulchand Dwarkadas v. The King PLD 1948 PC 11.
(4) That since the police took cognizance of the case, investigated the same and filed the challan much before sanction was received and' conveyed to the Court, the said proceedings must be treated as void.
4. ' See Dost Muhammad v. State (1976 PC:T..1J 184).
2. Notice to the State as to why this petition should not be converted into I appeal and be allowed.
5. Pending the final disposal of this petition, the proceedings before the trial Court shall remain suspended.
6. ' Notice issued.