Case Details

Citation(s)
1970 SLG 3132 1970 SLD 3132 = 1970 PLD 386
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
Criminal Revision Application No. 201 of 1967, decided on 9th December 1969.
Presented By: Muhammad Hayat Junejo, J
Manzoor Hussain Bar-at-Law for the State. Khalid M. Ishaque, Azizullah K. Shaikh and Hamid Adman for
Respondents.

THE STATE-Applicant

VERSUS

MUHAMMAD MOOSA AND 4 OTHERS-Opponents

Law:

Section: 403

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 403-Principle of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict (no one shall be either punished or put in peril twice for same offence)-Conditions to be satisfied for invoking S. 403(1). Section 403(1), Cr. P. C. incorporates the common law principle of the well known pleas of `autrefois acquit and autrefois convict', namely that no one shall be either punished or put in peril twice for the same offence. Before, however, this section can be invoked the following conditions have to be satisfied :-(i) That the accused has been already tried for the offence charged against him ; (ii) That the trial was held by a Court of competent jurisdiction ; and (iii) That there was judgment or order of acquittal or conviction. In the instant case, the accused were tried and convicted for alleged forgery of a sale deed but were acquitted on appeal. Later on, in connection with the same transaction, they were charged with the offence of removing forged thumb-impression from official Register. The trial Judge discharged the accused on the ground that the case before him was in respect of the same or similar offence of which the accused had already been tried and acquitted. On a revision petition by the State before the High Court, it was contended on behalf of the accused that the charges in the two cases were "similar" or in any case "inter-linked" to such an extent that the decision in the earlier case was bound to have effect on the later case as well Held, the two charges were in respect of totally distinct offences committed by different accused at different times. Merely because some accused happen to be common in both the cases or that the later offence may have been committed with a view to destroy or cause disappear ance of certain evidence which could have been material in the other case, would not bar a trial for the subsequent offence. Moreover, even if the findings of the learned Special Judge that the offences which are the subject-matter of the two cases were "similar" could be accepted, section 403, Cr. P. C. would not bar such a trial. It is impossible to hold that the effect of acquittal…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register