1994 P Cr (PLP)

S. 3/4/5

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199

Cancellation of F.I.R --Subsequent F.I.R. sought to be cancelled related to a separate transaction on which a separate case could validly be registered

Constitution petition was dismissed accordingly. Mushtaq Raj for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 11th November, 1992. Facts leading to the filing of this Constitutional petition are that a case under sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act stands registered against the petitioner with Police Station Cantt. Gujranwala vide F.I.R. dated 25-9-1991. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this Constitutional application seeks cancellation of the F-I.R. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that two F.I.Rs. with regard to the same occurrence were registered on 25-9-1991 for the same offences. Submits that F.I.R. bearing No.280 of 1991 was registered at 4 a.m. and the other bearing No.281 of 1991 was registered at 4-30 a.m. Contends that the allegations in both the F.I.Rs. are the same, therefore, the petitioner cannot be proceeded against in both the F.I.Rs. Contends that even otherwise the petitioner who is 16 years of age and has been made a scapegoat, in fact nothing was recovered from him. Asserted that both the F.I.Rs., are result of the same transaction therefore, only one F.I.R. could be registered. Contends that the registration of the case against the petitioner the offence falls under Article 13 of the Constitution read with section 403, P.P.C.

2. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the petition minutely. F.I.R. bearing No.280/91 was registered on 25-9-1991 at 4 a.m. on the request of Mushtaq Ahmad Inspector with the allegation that during interrogation one Muhsan Raza who was already in custody disclosed that in the backyard of the shop of Mujtaba Hussain petitioner, they had kept some grenades which were brought from Dera Adam Khel. He led the police party to the shop of Mujtaba Hussain petitioner who was sleeping outside his shop. From underneath ginny bags five grenades were secured and a case to that effect was registered. On the basis of the recovery petitioner was also taken into custody and during interrogation the petitioner voluntarily got recovered five more grenades which had been buried in the ground outside the shop and a separate case was registered. Learned counsel has relied upon number of judgments, all of them pertain to the point that a person cannot be tried twice for the same offence. In the instant case it is clear that F.I.R. number 280/91 was got registered on the basis of recovery of grenades from the shop of the petitioner at the instance of one Muhsan Raza. Petitioner had not got recovered those grenades. Subsequently petitioner was also interrogated and he got recovered five more grenades not from the shop, but outside his shop buried in the gorund. This, on the face of it, is a separate transaction and a separate case could validly be registered. As discussed earlier the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of this case. After considering all the aspects of the case I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. N.H.Q./M-1322/L Petition dismissed.