' This revision application is directed against the order of the Special Judge, Central Karachi accepting the contention of the defence that the applicant being a public servant could not be tried without a prior sanction but rejecting, the prayer of the applicant to acquit him in the proceedings.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the applicant who was a Manager, Pakistan Insurance Corporation, was being tried alongwith two others-by Special Judge, Central, Karachi. On 4-3-1976 charge was framed by the learned Special Judge for offence under sections 120-B, 407 and 471, P. P.
C. It was contended by the defence that previous sanction for prosecu-- tion was necessary before starting the proceedings. The learned Judge, however, passed an order that the accused could not be acquitted for want of sanction as, that could be obtained subsequently also. He accordingly directed the prosecution to move for sanction and meanwhile the case was adjourned. Under section 6(5) of the Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958 previous sanction of the appropriate Government shall be required for the prosecution of a public servant for an offence ur der the Act. Under the proviso, if the complaint is not accompanied by such sanction the Special Judge shall immediately on receipt of the complaint or report write to the appropriate Government for the required sanction and if the same is not received within 60 days of the receipt of the letter such sanction shall be deemed to have been duly accorded. Thus the letter for sanction must be written on receipt of the complaint or report and before taking cognizance. Any proceedings taken without such sanction would be without jurisdiction and would also vitiate the subsequent proceedings which may have been taken after the sanction was obtained. In Rashid Ahmad v. The State (1)' it was observed that obtaining sanction of the appropriate authority was mandatory and a condition precedent for a proceedings would be rendered illegal and without jurisdiction. It was also observed that the proceedings which follow too become illegal and suffer for want of jurisdiction. Even orders-passed on continuation of such proceedings would be without jurisdiction.
This view was also taken by our own Court in Shafi Muhammad v. The State (2). It was held in that cases that sanction for prosecution being a condition precedent to trial of the accused, trial without due sanction would be illegal and the proceedings were accordingly quashed. In another case of this Court Ghulam All Jinnah v. The State (3) it was held that a trial without sanction was illegal though retrial after obtaining sanction was not barred.
3. Under these circumstances the proceedings relating to framing charge etc., being without jurisdiction are hereby quashed. The prosecution would, however, be at liberty to institute fresh proceedings after obtaining a valid and proper sanction. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1972 SC 271 (2) 1975 P Cr. L J 293
(3) 1975 P Cr. L J 583 {{FOOT NOTE}} PAKISTAN CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL [VOL. XI