Principle of double jeopardy

Both references were authorized on basis of separate complaints received after each other and references were based on separate investigations which disclosed that in each case petitioner along with co-accused through corrupt practices had embezzled hundreds of million of rupees and had caused massive loss to the State exchequer

In earlier reference there were 17 accused and loss was over Rs. 1 billion while in subsequent reference there were 4 accused and loss was approximately Rs. 500 million making a combined total of approximately Rs. 1.5 billion as total loss to the exchequer

Present was not a case of double jeopardy and Art.13 of the Constitution was not attracted since transaction in each reference related to different financial periods

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as both references could proceed in accordance with law

Prima facie sufficient material was available on record to connect petitioner to offence for which he had been charged in subsequent reference

High Court also declined to release accused on bail

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Ground agitated by counsel for the accused was that accused had already been facing prosecution under a reference before Accountability Court consequently he could not be prosecuted for the same offence of the FIR in question on the basis of report made by same complainant

Contention of counsel for accused was misconceived

Article 13(a) of the Constitution provided that no person shall be prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once only if accused was convicted and punished

Section 403, Cr.P.C. prohibited the second trial for an offence during the course of existence of conviction or acquittal of a person

In the present case, accused was not prosecuted i.e. neither acquitted nor convicted by any court in the offence for which he had been charged by competent court of law therefore neither provisions of Art. 13(a) of Constitution nor the provisions of S. 403, Cr.P.C. could be applied in order to set aside the impugned FIR

Application was dismissed accordingly.