| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2014 SLG 2414 2014 SLD 2414 2014 PCRLJ 1698 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Bail Application No. 560 of 2013, decided on 9th September, 2013. DATE of hearing: 3rd September, 2013
GHULAM SARWAR KORAI AND NAIMATULLAH PHOLPOTO, JJ
Shahab Sarki for Applicant. Muhammad Ashraf Khan Mughal, Assistant Prosecutor-General Sindh for the State
Criminal Bail Application No. 560 of 2013, decided on 9th September, 2013. DATE of hearing: 3rd September, 2013
GHULAM SARWAR KORAI AND NAIMATULLAH PHOLPOTO, JJ
Shahab Sarki for Applicant. Muhammad Ashraf Khan Mughal, Assistant Prosecutor-General Sindh for the State
KHADIM HUSSAIN PALH
VS
The STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 497---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 26---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 13---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420 & 489-F---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, dishonestly issuing a cheque, criminal misconduct---Bail, refusal of---Simultaneous prosecution for separate F.I.Rs. arising from the same transaction---Scope---Double jeopardy, rule of---Scope---Accused, who was serving in a senior position at a bank, allegedly persuaded complainant to invest certain amount in the bank in return for better (than normal) profit---Accused received said amount from complainant and issued receipts to him on letter pad of the bank under his signature---Subsequently accused could not fulfil his commitment and in return issued bogus cheques from his account to the complainant, which were dishonoured on presentation due to insufficient funds---(Present) F.I.R. was lodged against accused under S. 420, P.P.C. read with S. 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947---Separate F.I.R. under S. 489-F, P.P.C. was also lodged against the accused---Pleas of accused were that separate F.I.Rs. were registered against him despite the fact that offences were committed in the same transaction; that law required only one trial for offences arising out of the same transaction; and that separate civil proceedings in the form of recovery suit had also been initiated by complainant in regard to the offence---Validity---Under S.26 of General Clauses Act, 1897 there was no bar on simultaneous prosecution; what was prohibited was duplicate punishment and not the trial---Mere lodging of F.I.Rs. would not attract the rule of double jeopardy--- Facts of both F.I.Rs. were entirely different---Present criminal proceedings were also entirely different from the civil proceedings initiated by the complainant (for recovery of amount)---Accused absconded without explanation and deliberately avoided joining the investigation and as such lost some of his normal rights guaranteed by the procedural as well as substantive law---Sufficient material was available on record to connect…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492