Nemo Debit Bis Vexari

2005 PLD 1 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 10, 11, 12 & 17Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.403, 222, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 537 & 397Maxim: Nemo debet bis vexariMaxim: Autrefois acquit autrefois convictConstitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.13Corruption and corrupt practicesCriminal breach of trust and dishonest misappropriation of moneyFiling of three references by National Accountability BureauJoint trial of each offenceValidityDouble jeopardyConditions to be satisfied for invoking S.403, Cr.P.C."Same facts" and similar factsDistinction

Benefit of S.403, Cr.P.C. or provisions of Art.13 of the Constitution when available/not available to accused

1997 PLC 353 LABOUR-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Nemo Debit Bis VexariNemo debit bis vexari" (Nobody could be vexed twice for the same offence)When once a person was acquitted he could not be tried again and convictedConstitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 13

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 403.

1987 SCMR 527 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

O. IX, Rr. 8 & 9 and O.II, R. 2(2)Maxim: Nemo debet lis vexavi (no one was to be twice vexed for the same cause of action)Dismissal of suit for non-appearance of plaintiffBar of fresh suitDispute over inheritance of immovable property

Suit of appellants (brothers and sisters) filed at for a declaration that respondent was not the son of their deceased brother and as - such he was not the latter's heir and consequently, they were entitled to 3/4th share in property left by their brother dismissed in default under R. 8, O.IX" C.P.C.

Second suit filed at F for similar declaration and on same cause of action barred by R. 9, O.IX, C.P.C.

Contention that before suit at B was dismissed the suit at F had already been instituted and, therefore, R.9 of O.IX, C.P.C. was not in terms applicable as the said rule only prevented a plaintiff from instituting a fresh suit but had no effect on a suit which had already been filed-