| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1966 SLG 5047 = 1966 SLD 5047 = 1966 PLD 131 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2958 of 1963, Reference answered on 5th November 1965.
Presented By: J. Ortcheson, Muhammad Yaqub Ali and A. R. Shaikh, JJ
Muhammad Afzal v. Commissioner, Lahore Division P L D 1963 S C 401 rel. Qaiser Mustafa for Petitioner. Aslam Riaz Hussain, A. A.-G. for the State. Qaiser Mustafa for Petitioner. S. Nasir-ud-Din, A.-G., Aslam Riaz Hussain, A. A.-G. and Khalid Mahmood Pasha for the State.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2958 of 1963, Reference answered on 5th November 1965.
Presented By: J. Ortcheson, Muhammad Yaqub Ali and A. R. Shaikh, JJ
Muhammad Afzal v. Commissioner, Lahore Division P L D 1963 S C 401 rel. Qaiser Mustafa for Petitioner. Aslam Riaz Hussain, A. A.-G. for the State. Qaiser Mustafa for Petitioner. S. Nasir-ud-Din, A.-G., Aslam Riaz Hussain, A. A.-G. and Khalid Mahmood Pasha for the State.
GHULAM NABI----Petitioner
VERSUS
THE STATE-Respondent
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 403
Law: General Clauses Act (X of 1897)
Section: 26
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 403 read with General. Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 26; Martial Law Order (M. L. A. Zone B's) No. 104, para. 1 (a) and Martial Law Regulation (C. M. L. A.'s) No. 16-Acquittal of accused of offence under S. 408, Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-Mere fact of acquittal does not render him immune from prosecution for disobedience of a "valid" Martial Law Order-Provisions of S. 403, Cr. P. C. or of S. 26, General Clauses Act, 1897 not applicable, and cannot be invoked in bar of such prosecution. The mere fact that the accused had been acquitted previously on a charge under section 408, P. P. C., does not render him immune from prosecution for disobedience or neglect to obey - a valid Martial Law Order. Provision of section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 cannot be successfully, invoked in this respect. The prosecution of the accused under Martial Law Regulation (C. M. L. A.'s) No. 16 read with Martial Law Order (M. L. A.'s) No. 104, was not for the same offence "again". He cannot, therefore, be heard to say that because he had been acquitted previously and that acquittal is still in force, he was not liable to be tried again for the same offence or on the same' facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under section 236, Cr. P. C. or for which he might have been convicted under section 237, Cr. P. C. The second offence under Martial Law Regulation No. 16 is clearly a distinct offence arising out of a separate bundle of facts and circumstances and his trial cannot be struck down on this ground alone. The pro visions of section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or of section 26 of the General Clauses Act are not applicable to the facts of such a case and the trial held under Martial Law Regulation No. 16 read with para. l(a) of Martial Law Order No. 104, Zone B' could not be questioned on this score. (b) Martial Law Order (M. L. A. Zone B's) No. 104, para. 1(a)-Government dues outstanding"-Words "outstanding" and…