Appellants jointly appeal against the threatened delinquency of section 417 (2A), 403 and 248 of the Conventional Code (XLV of 1860), section 337A (IV) and 34 of the Shuja and Monqila, primarily respondents / FIR was filed against the accused due to dissatisfaction with the investigating officer's inquiry on his and his brother's complaint, a private complaint was filed against the accused in the Magistrate's challan court. In the IR Case State case and a private complaint was filed, both were upheld by the trial court and after the accused was recorded, the evidence was recorded, after which the complainant filed a private complaint. Defined for the trial of the Ethl trial court, allowed to withdraw the case and the accused acquitted, nor will anyone be tried for the same offense again. The same facts remain after being acquitted while such a deferment remains. As Section 403, CCP considers a situation where a person once tried and was acquitted by a court of competent jurisdiction, he could not be tried again for the same offense, Nor was the criminal indictment once more convicted for another offense based on similar facts. A competent court and the verdict were final, whether ended on a bad trial or conviction, when the complainant withdrew his private complaint after recording of the evidence of the prosecutor and the defendants, in view of Section 248, the CR PC He was acquitted; he could not be tried in the state case before him. In section 3, 3, the CCP is charged with double jeopardy in the presence of acquittal of the accused.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
