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 Miscellaneous Application No.1184 of 1986, decided on 2nd March, 1987.
‑‑‑S. 561‑A‑‑Sind Crimes Control Act (IV of 1975), S. 14‑‑Quashing of proceedings‑‑Principle of double jeopardy‑‑Application of proceedings initiated against accused under S.14 of Sind Crimes Control Act 1975 were same as were taken against him under S.110 of Criminal Procedure Code which had already been enquired into and finally decided‑‑Witnesses cited in decided proceedings and pending proceedings also same‑‑Counsel for State conceding that accused was being put to second enquiry on same material‑‑Held, principle of double jeopardy was very much attracted in case of accused‑ Proceedings pending under S.14 of Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 before Sub Divisional Magistrate/ Tribunal being unawarranted and mala fide were quashed in circumstances.
1979 P Cr. L J 24 rel.
Awan Rehmatullah Nadeem for Applicant.
Zawar Hussain Jafri A . A . G . for the State.
The present revision application is for quashment of proceedings taken cognizance of by S.D.M and Tribunal, Kandhkot under the Sind Crimes Control Act 1975 with a short point raised. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already been proceeded .against under section 110 Cr.P. C and that on the same basis of allegations and instances the present proceedings are initiated. Proceedings under section 110 Cr.P.C. were instituted by Buxapur Police against the petitioner which ended after final order under section 118 Cr.P.C. was made by the S.D.M, Kandkhot on 9‑3‑1986. The copies of the report No.5 of 1986 under section 110 Cr.P.C. and the final order 118 Cr.P.C. in these proceedings are filed and placed on record and again the present proceedings as report No.2 of 1986 under section 14 of Sind Crime Control Act are initiated the perusal of .the reports reveal that the allegations under section 110 Cr.P. C and section 14 of Sind Crimes Control Act are the same and identical and it has been rightly pointed out that the principle of double jeopardy is very much attracted to the present case.
The instances given out in the pending proceedings under the Sind Crimes Control detailed in the report are the same Le case No.65 of 1985 under section 326 of P.S, Kandhkot and report No.5 of 1986 under section 110 Cr.P.C. which has already been enquired into and finally decided. The witnesses cited in decided proceedings and pending proceedings are the some police officers. After hearing the learned counsel and the A.A. G appearing for the State. AAG has conceded to the position of petitioner being put to second enquiry on same material and has no objection to the quashment. I am clear in my mind that the proceedings pending under section 14 Sind Crimes Control Act before S.D.M. and Tribunal, Kandhkot are unwarranted and mala fide. Petitioner's counsel has placed reliance on 1979 P.Cr.L.J 24. Apart from the fact that the instances quoted do not satisfy the requirements of clause (xix) to section 14 of the S.C.C Act. The learned AAG conceded and does not oppose. The petition No. 1194 of 1986 is accordingly allowed and the proceedings under section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act pending against the petitioner before the Tribunal and S.D.M, Kandhkot are hereby quashed, for the reasons given above.
M Y H/M‑239/k. Proceedings quashed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer