PEER BAKHSH vs THE STATE

This revision application under section 22(2) of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, is directed against the Order of Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, in proceedings started against the Petitioner under the Sind Crime Control Act on the report of S. H. O., Phulleli Police Station, Hyderabad.

2. It had been argued in the revision application before the learned Commissioner that the petitioner had been prosecuted under section 5 of the West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1969 on the report of S. H. O., Phulleli Police Station on 10-10-1974 in the Court of District Magistrate, Hyderabad; that while those proceedings under the Goondas Ordinance were still pending, the petitioner had again been prosecuted under section 14 of the Crimes Control Act before the Tribunal and S. D. M. City Sub-Division, Hyderabad on the same facts. The learned Commissioner expressed in his order that both proceedings could co-exist though the judgment in one case would influence the proceedings still pending.

3. The perusal of the two complaints would show that the allegations in the complaint under the Goondas Ordinance were that the petitioner indulged in anti-social activities and he had been challaned in certain cases under section 6, Gambling Ordinance, 13-D, Arms Ordinance and 43(3), Abkari Act. These were cases of 1972 and 1974. The allegations in the report under the Crimes Control Act were that the petitioner indulged in anti--social activities and the instances cited were the same cases under the Gambling Ordinance, 13-D, Arms Ordinance and 43(3) Abkari Act of the years 1972 and 1974.

4. Thus the general allegations and the facts constituting the specific instances are the same in both the prosecutions. In fact the Goonda Ordinance, 1959 was repealed and re-enacted as Crimes Control Act, 1975. But under section 27 of the Crimes Control Act, the pending proceedings under the Goondas Act have been saved.

5. It has thus been rightly pointed out that a person cannot be subject--ed 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 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 The state ought to have withdrawn the case under the Goondas Ordinance in case they wanted to prosecute the Petitioner under the Crimes Control Act.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 Crime: Control Act on the same facts for the same allegations would not be maintainable.

6. The petition is accordingly allowed and the proceedings under section 14 of the Crimes Control Act pending against the petitioner before the Tribunal and S. D. M., City Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.