' Through this Criminal Revision, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26-11-1998 passed by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore seized of the trial of the case registered vide F.I.R.
No,31 of 1991 under section 409/420/467/468/471/109, P.P.C., read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 PS Anti-Corruption, Lahore vide which the learned Judge dismissed petitioners' application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. The precise ground which is being pressed to impugn the afore-referred order is that in absence of sanction for prosecution granted by the competent authority the trial cannot be proceeded as admittedly petitioners were public servants when the offence was committed.
2. Petitioner had earlier filed Criminal Revision No,227 of 1997 wherein he had challenged the order, dated 20-9-1997 passed by the learned trial Court whereby petitioners' application with the similar prayer was dismissed on the ground that the matter required recording of some evidence. This Court dismissed the afore-referred revision petition and observed as under:--- "The law is settled that no sanctie is necessary for the prosecution of a public servant who was no longer a public servant when the trial commenced. Reliance is placed on Nazir Hussain Shah v. The State (PLD 1965 Supreme Court 139) wherein at page 145 it was held as under:--- "If this background of the enactment is borne in mind there is no room for doubt that the intention of the Legislature was that no sanction would be necessary for prosecution of a public servant who had ceased to be a public servant when the Court was taking cognizance of an offence which had been committed by him when he was a public servant and this was also made clear by adding an Explanation to section 6(5)."
3. The afore-referred order of this Court was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that too was' dismissed. After recording some evidence petitioner has once again filed application under section 265-K, Cr. P . C . , which was dismissed on 26-11-1998 on the ground that "the challan in this case was firstly submitted on 18-1-1992 and subsequently on 25-5-1993. Before that date, the accused ceased to be public servants so there was no need to obtain sanction for prosecution especially when the trial has commenced after resubmission of challan on 30-8-1993, the date on which the fresh charge-sheet was drawn up".
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on PLD 1992 Supreme Court 72 to contend that since the sanction was nonexistent the trial is vitiated.
5. The learned Additional Advocate-General submits that this Court had already passed a detailed order in which the ground which has been agitated in this petition has already been found to be untenable.
6. Heard.
7. It is not denied that the fresh charge was framed after the re-submission of challan in the year 1993 when the petitioners were no longer public servant. That being so no sanction was required.
Relying on a judgment of the august Supreme Court reported in Nazir Hussain Shah v. The State (PLD 1965 Supreme Court 139) this Court had already dismissed petitioners' revision petition. I see no tenable ground to interfere. This petition having no merit is dismissed.