Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 322,427

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 403,561A

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 13(a)

Law: Mines Act, 1923

Section: 40

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 322 & 427---Mines Act (IV of 1923), S. 40---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 561-A & 403---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 13(a)---Qatl-bis-sabab, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, contravention of the provisions of Act---Inherent powers of High Court---Petition for quashing of FIR---Principle of double jeopardy---Applicability---Prosecution case was that during mining operation, an incident of sliding had taken place due to which two persons had lost their lives---Police, thus, registered the impugned FIR, wherein the present petitioner was charged under S. 322 read with 427, P.P.C.---Petitioner being aggrieved of the registration of the said FIR had approached the Court through Constitutional petition---Validity---Perusal of the said allegations would show that prima facie the petitioner was to be charged under two provisions of different statutes, one under S. 40 of the Mines Act, 1923 and the other under Ss. 322 & 427, P.P.C.---In essence the petitioner had taken shelter behind the Art. 13 of the Constitution as well as S. 403, Cr.P.C. for quashing of the impugned FIR by stating that when the incident was punishable under S. 40 of the Mines Act, 1923, then registration of FIR under Ss. 322 & 427, P.P.C. was unwarranted---Record showed that FIR under Ss. 322 & 427, P.P.C. had been registered which was at investigation stage and even no challan had been put in court---Record was also silent regarding initiation of any action under the Mines Act, 1923---Prosecution of the petitioner was yet to commence under the impugned sections of law---Contentions of the petitioner were unfounded, in circumstances---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 13(a)--- Principle of protection against double punishment/double jeopardy---Applicability---Once a person was prosecuted and acquitted for an offence, he could not be subsequently tried for the same. Muhammd Ashraf's case 1995 SCMR 626; Nazir Ahmad v. Capital City Police Officer, Lahore and another 2011 SCMR 484; The State through Collector of Customs v. Nasim Amin Butt and others…

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