Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Petition No. 29 of 1983, decided on 11th May, 1986.
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 11th January, 1983, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4/Q of 1983).
‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 403‑Con tention that since offence committed by accused was similar in nature to the one of which he was acquitted and evidence of which prosecu tion sought to prove the subsequent case against him was the same as in the previous one, provisions of S. 403, Cr. P. C. though‑strictly not applicable principles contained therein would be attracted‑--There being no Judgment of Supreme Court on the point and case being that of first impression requiring a well‑considered judgment by Supreme Court, leave to appeal was granted to consider whether in peculiar circumstances of the case principles of S. 403E Cr. P. C. would be attracted to petitioner's case.
Muhammad Ikram and others v. The State P L D 1965 Lah. 461 mentioned.
Aitzaz Ahsan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing :10th May, 1986.
Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the High Court, dated 11‑1‑1983, dismissing his application under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. praying that proceedings against him under section 409, P. P. C. be quashed.
2. Facts, briefly, are that the petitioner who was a Head Cashier in the Government Transport Service, Gujrat, was accused of having com mitted the breach of trust in respect of certain amounts of money during his tenure as the Head Cashier. He was, however, acquitted of the said charge on 29‑4‑1980. But subsequently; an audit of the accounts of the Department was carried out by the Audit Party which disclosed the commission of offence by the petitioner punishable under section 409/ 420/468/471, P: P. C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The matter was entrusted for trial to the Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Lahore.
The petitioner filed an application under sections 249‑A and 265-K, Cr. P. C. which was dismissed by the trial Court. He then filed a quash ment application under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C., before the High Court for the quashment of criminal proceedings against him.
3. He urged before us that although provisions of section 403, Cr. P. C. which provide that a person who is once acquitted of an offence cannot be tried again for the same offence, are not strictly applicable to this case. But since the offence is similar in nature to the one of which he was acquitted and the evidence of which the prosecution seeks to prove the subsequent case against him is the same as in the previous one, the principles of section 403, Cr. P. C. would be attracted. For this contention he relied on Muhammad Ikram and others v. The State (P L D 1965 Lah. 461) and a number, of other authorities mentioned in the said judgment.
4. There is no judgment of the Supreme Court on this case. As such this is a case of first impression requiting a well‑considered judgment by this Court. Leave is, therefore, granted to consider whether in the peculiar circumstances of this case the principles of section 403, Cr. P. C. would be attracted to the petitioner s case.
M.B.A. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer