1989 P Cr (PLP)

2. On 3-11-1984, S.H.O. Jamshed Quarters Police Station made a report against the present applicant, before S.D.M. (Central) Karachi and a Tribunal constituted under the Surd Crimes Control Act, 1975, for taking security for good behaviour from him. During the pendency of these proceedings a similar report was made by Ghulam Hyder Abro, Inspector, Incharge S.I.T. Jamshed Quarters, Karachi before the same Tribunal for taking similar action against the applicant. The Tribunal took cognizance in terms of section 4 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, vide order dated 5-11-1988, which is the subject-matter of this application.

3. Article 13 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, provides as follows:- "

13. Protection against double punishment and self-incrimination.-- No person-- (a) shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once; or (b) shall, when accused of an offence, be compelled to be a witness against himself."

4. Mr. Jawed Haider Kazmi, learned counsel for applicant has, therefore, contended that clause (a) of this Article raises to a constitutional status the principle of AUTREFOIS CONVICT (formerly convicted), AUTREFOIS ACQUIT (formerly acquitted), and double jeopardy embodied in section 403, Cr.P.C., which also finds place in a modified form in section 25 of the Sind General Clauses Act, 1956, in the following words:- "Where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either of any of those enactments, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence."

5. A perusal of Article 13 shows that it prohibits both `double prosecution' and `double punishment' for the same offence. No doubt the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, being preventive in nature was enacted to provide effective machinery of law to prevent the commission and repetition of crimes and there is no `conviction' or `acquittal' in such cases, but still where the plea of section 403, A Cr.P.C. is not technically available, the principle of it is available to the person proceeded against under the provisions of Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, when the interests of justice require its extension in his favour. The principle of `double jeopardy' was examined by Mushtaq Ali Kazi J, in Peer Bux v. The State, reported in 1979 P Cr. L J 24, in relation to the proceedings under section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, who observed as follows:- "It has thus been rightly pointed out that a person cannot be subjected to double jeopardy by being prosecuted on the same facts and regarding the same charges under separate proceedings simultaneously. This procedure would be repugnant to Article 13 of the Constitution that no person shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once. Thus, there is a bar even with regard to the prosecution apart from the punishment to which a person may eventually be subjected. The State ought to have withdrawn the case under the Goondas Ordinance in case they wanted to prosecute the petitioner under the Crimes Control Act. But not having done so, the second prosecution under the Crimes Control Act on the same facts for the same allegations would not be maintainable."

6. The cases reported as Abdul Waheed v. Zulqarnain, Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Layallpur and 2 others 1972 P Cr. L J 177 and Muhammad Khan v. The State 1987 P Cr. L J 2345, are also relevant in this behalf. Faced with this situation, Mr. A.K. Jatoi, learned counsel for the State has also supported the contention raised on behalf of applicant.

7. For the foregoing reasons, the application made under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. is allowed and the proceedings initiated on the report dated 4-11-1988, p under section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, pending against the applicant before S.D.M. (Central/Tribunal Karachi, are hereby quashed. ?/M-686/K ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Proceedings quashed.