MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs THE STATE and another
The petitioner, a teacher accused of obtaining advance increments through a forged B.A. result card, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 420, 468, 467, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 5(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings could continue against the petitioner after he had already been subjected to departmental proceedings, penalized, and the wrongful gain recovered under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act 2006. The Lahore High Court held that continuing criminal proceedings under such circumstances would violate the protection against double jeopardy enshrined in Article 13(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the petitioner had already endured departmental punishment and restitution. The court laid down the principle that where departmental penalties have been fully executed and recovery made for the same wrong, continuing criminal prosecution constitutes an abuse of the process of law, warranting quashment of the FIR under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does continuing criminal proceedings after the imposition of departmental penalties and recovery of wrongful gains constitute double jeopardy?
- Can a criminal petition for bail be converted into a petition for quashment of an FIR under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether an FIR is liable to be quashed when the accused has already endured departmental punishment and compensated the government for the same cause?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 467, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(ii), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 403, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Article 13(a), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Section 4(b)(i) and (iii), Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act 2006
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, J.---Petitioner Muhammad Ramzan has sought for post arrest bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No,75 dated 24-11-2008 under sections 420/468/467/471, P.P.C. Read with section 5(ii) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 at Police Station, ACE, Distt. Kasur, on the complaint of Dy. District Education Officer (M-EE), Kasur.
2. Cameo of the accusation is that petitioner while serving as PTC teacher in Govt. Primary School Chak Bodla, Distt. Kasur by providing a fake result Card of additional qualification (B.A) got three increments and in this way, he misused his position by preparing a forged document and also being its usage, obtained wrongful gain.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case of double jeopardy as departmentally the petitioner was proceeded against he was dismissed from service, then on appeal he was repatriated by forfeiting his past five years' service and amounts received as advance increments of B. A and directing to recover and deposit the same in the Govt. Exchequer and the same has already been recovered and the petitioner has been reinstated, therefore, by virtue of section 403, Cr.P.C. Read with Art. 13(a) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, petitioner cannot be vexed twice for the same cause/wrong. It has also been submitted that it is not only a good case for grant of bail but the F.I.R. Is required to be quashed as the petitioner has suffered for the wrong done by him. Further submitted that wrongful gain obtained by him has been recovered through the orders of competent appellate forum and the Govt. Has been compensated, therefore, F.I.R. Is liable to be quashed.
4. Learned DPP has opposed the submissions, however, these facts viz: as to the dismissal of the petitioner, forfeiture of five years past service and all other amounts received as advance increments of B.A. And its recovery and deposit in the Govt. Treasury has not been denied. It has also not been controverted that petitioner has been reinstated by the competent authority.
However, bail has been opposed that petitioner forged the document, used the same and on the basis of the same obtained wrongful gain, . Therefore, he being member of literate community and being a nation builder (teacher) is not entitled for the grant of bail.
5. Hearkened and record perused.
6. After the registration of the case, petitioner was proceeded against departmentally, he was dismissed from the service, then he challenged his dismissal order and his appeal was accepted by the appellate forum vide order dated 25-6-2008 by converting his dismissal from Govt. Service into major penalty of forfeiture of past five years service with order to recover all the amounts which he received (as advance increments of B.A) illegally from the public treasury under section 4(b)(i) and (iii) of the PEEDA Act, 2006 and the same was done and the petitioner has been reinstated to his service. It has also been found that petitioner has in fact endured the penalty imposed upon him departmentally and it is basic principle of criminal jurisprudence that nobody can be vexed twice for the same cause/wrong as per provisions of section 403, Cr.P.C. Read with Art.13(a) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
7. Under these circumstances, when nothing is required to be recovered from the petitioner and to continue proceedings in the case would sheer be an abuse of process of law and court or otherwise would be nothing except risible, therefore, by exercising inherent powers conferred to this court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., instant petition is converted into petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. And the F.I.R. As well as other proceedings emanated from it are hereby quashed.
8. Consequently, petitioner lying in District Jail, Kasur, is directed to be set at liberty, in a trice, if not required in any other case.
9. Disposed of accordingly.