1998 P Cr (PLP)

Convicted. 5. 125/86 294, P.P.C. A.S.I. Azizur‑Rehman, Police Station Napier. Convicted. 6. 51/95 3/4, P. Ord. S.I. Muhammad Riaz, Police Station Napier. Convicted. 7. 40/96 3/4, P. Ord. S.I. Tariq Muhammad Police Station Napier. P. trial. 8. 69/96 3/4, P. Ord. A.S.I. Ali Muhammad, Police Station Napier. P. trial. 9. 73/97 13/14/18, Zina Ordinance S.I./S.H.O. Zulqarnain Akhtar. P. invt. Therefore, a request was made for issuance of N.B.Ws. and for getting her bound down for maintaining good behaviour for a period of 90 days. Mr. S.A. Ghaffar, counsel for the applicant mainly contended that applicant is a peaceful citizen being a married woman having grown‑up children and is living separately in Gali Bara Imam, Napier Road, Karachi (South). According to him, she was booked under the same proceedings on 22‑7‑1996 and is facing trial before the same Tribunal which is not yet finalised. As such another proceeding under same provision of law cannot be taken up afresh. Learned counsel further argued that Article 13 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 provides a protection against double punishment and no one shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once. On this contention he refers to the case of Ismail A. Rehman v. Muhammad Sadiq and others, PLD 1990 Kar.

286. He next contended that mere pendency of cases would not attract the provisions of Sindh Crimes Control Act and cannot be an alternative of the statement of particulars to be furnished under section 5 of the Act. He lastly submitted that learned Tribunal has straightaway passed order under section 5 of the Act and has issued N.B.Ws. without first issuing the summons and complying with the provisions laid down under section 6 of the Act whereby the copies of complaint etc. are to be sent alongwith process. On this contention he refers the case of Haji Ali Muhammad Solangi v. Tribunal/ S.D.M., Nazimabad Karachi, PLD 1980 Kar. 26,

7. Mr. Jawaid Akhtar for the State conceded the arguments advanced by applicant's counsel and admits that applicant cannot be challaned under the similar proceedings once the same are pending before the same Tribunal. The copy of order under section 5 of the Act passed on the earlier proceedings shows that those proceedings were initiated on the complaint of S.H.O. of Police Station Napier Road on 22‑7‑1996 and above order was passed on 7‑8‑1996 and the proceedings are still pending. During the pendency of earlier proceedings the present proceedings have been initiated on 25‑7‑1997 by same police station on the same material as such in view of Article 13 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 no person shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once. This Article provides a protection against double prosecution as well as double punishment. This view is supported by this Court in the case of Ismail A. Rehman v. Muhammad Sadiq, PLD 1990 Kar. 281 at page 300(E) which is reproduced as under:‑‑‑ "So far as the language of Article 13 is concerned, the words ' no person shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once" are employed. Courts may take recourse to the legislative history as well as to the intention of the Legislature but bearing always in mind that the intention is test expressed in the words used. " The mere pendency of cases would not attract the requirement of section 14 of the Act more particularly when vague and general allegations are levelled without detailing time and place of the charges as such the taking of cognizance of such report held would not be proper. This Court in the case of Haji Ali Muhammad Solangi v. Tribunal/S.D.M., PLD 1980 Kar. 267 has dealt with this aspect of the case in detail and quashed the proceedings. Accordingly, there seems to be no justification for the learned Tribunal to proceed with the proceedings specially when the similar type of proceedings are pending adjudication before him. In these circumstances this application is allowed and N.B.Ws. against the applicant are set aside and the proceedings are quashed alongwith M.A. No.3554 of 1997. H.B.T./S‑125/K Application allowed.