| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 1177 2015 SLD 1177 2015 PLJ 356 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 304 of 2012, decision & hearing Dated:11.02.2014. (On appeal from the judgment Dated 30.11.2011 inIntra Court Appeal No. 01 /2010 passed by the Peshawar HighCourt, Peshawar)
ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE, SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE, IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE
Syed Hasnain Ibrahim Kazmi, ASC for Petitioner.Mr. Iftikharuddin Riaz, ASC, Mr. M. S. Khattak, AOR Mr. Muzaffar A. Mirza, Director Law SECP and Mr. Ibrar Saeed, Law Officer, SECP for
Respondent.
Civil Petition No. 304 of 2012, decision & hearing Dated:11.02.2014. (On appeal from the judgment Dated 30.11.2011 inIntra Court Appeal No. 01 /2010 passed by the Peshawar HighCourt, Peshawar)
ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE, SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE, IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE
Syed Hasnain Ibrahim Kazmi, ASC for Petitioner.Mr. Iftikharuddin Riaz, ASC, Mr. M. S. Khattak, AOR Mr. Muzaffar A. Mirza, Director Law SECP and Mr. Ibrar Saeed, Law Officer, SECP for
Respondent.
MUHAMMAD NADEEM ANWARVS Securities And Exchange Commission Of Pakistan THROUGH DIRECTOR NBFCS
Law:
Section:
Companies Ordinance, 1984 (XLVII of 1984)-- ----Ss. 10(2) 230(7), 236(6) & 282-K--National Accountability Ordinance, (XVIII of 1999), S. 10--Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, S. 3--Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)--Intra Court Appeal, dismissal of--Conviction and sentence under NAB Ordinance and allegations in subsequent proceedings under companies jurisdiction--If allegations contained in complaint under companies jurisdiction and charges under NAB Ordinance are kept in juxtaposition it will be clearly apparent therefrom that offences with which petitioner is being charged under companies jurisdiction of High Court relate to violation and non-compliance of requirements made in Section 230(7), 234(6) and Section 282-K of Companies Ordinance, 1984 in respect of books of accounts, keeping true and fair contents of balance sheet and making false statement, thus, there is no similarity in between provisions of Companies Ordinance and NAB Ordinance despite fact that two prosecutions arose out of same incident or some of facts in two prosecutions are common, same will make no difference, thus, we feel no hesitation in coming to conclusion that offences under Companies Ordinance are quite different, from offences under NAB Ordinance, 1999. Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 403--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), S. 302--Anit-Terrorism Act, (XXVII of 1997), 1997, S. 7--General Clauses Act, (VI of 1897), S. 26--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 13--Principle of double jeopardy--Prohibition to try a person for second time for same offence--Applicability--Where action of person falls under enactment but if such action falls under two distinct and separate enactment then bar to try for second time--Validity--Since accused has committed three offences in one go and they are same offences--Since acts committed by petitioner do not fall at all within definition of same offence, therefore, principle of double jeopardy will not come into force--No person shall be vexed twice and prosecuted or punished for same offence but if he is guilty of offence under another enactment though by same chain of facts, he could be tried, convicted and punished under…