STATE through Prosecutor-General, Punjab vs JAHANGIR AKHTAR and others

ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---The respondents in these appeals had allegedly obtained employment in the police department on the basis of fake and forged School Leaving Certificates and upon discovery of such forgery and fabrication they were not only compulsorily retired from service but were also proceeded against on the criminal side through registration of different FIRs, The respondents applied before the trial court under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. seeking their premature acquittal and the trial court acquitted them of the charge upon acceptance of such applications which orders of the trial court were subsequently upheld by the High Court through dismissal of different appeals filed by the State against the respondents' acquittal. Hence, the present appeals by leave of this Court granted on different dates.

2. The impugned orders passed by the trial court in the respondents' cases show that the trial court was labouring under a misconception that on account of compulsory retirement of the respondents from service they could not be criminally prosecuted for the same matter as such prosecution was to amount to double jeopardy attracting the provision of Article 13(a) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and section 403, Cr.P.C. and even the High Court had agreed with the said opinion. It had not been appreciated by the courts below that disciplinary action taken by a department and criminal prosecution are quite distinct from each other and can proceed simultaneously or one after the other and such separate actions do not attract the principle of double jeopardy. It has already been clarified by this Court in many a precedent case that disciplinary proceedings are meant solely for maintaining and ensuring purity of service whereas criminal prosecution is meant to punish a person for the offence committed by him and that in a proper case departmental and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously or one after the other. A reference in this respect may be made to the cases of M/s. Hindustan Tin Works (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Employees of M/s. Hindustan Tin Works (Pvt.) Ltd. and others (AIR 1979 SC 75), Muhammad Sardar Khan v. Senior Member (Establishment), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore (1985 SCM R 1062), The Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore and others v.

Anis-ur-Rehman Khan (PLD 1985 SC 134), Abdul Sattar v. Government of the Punjab through Additional Inspector-General of Police, Lahore and others (1987 SCM R 745), Muhammad Ayub v.

The Chairman, Electricity Board, WAPDA, Peshawar and another (PLD 1987 SC 195), The Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad and others v. Muhammad Iqbal (1988 SCM R 1792), Ghulam Ghaus v. The Chief Engineer, WAPDA, Faisalabad Region, Faisalabad and another (1989 SCM R 1139), Abdul Rehman v. The Chief Engineer, Sargodha Electricity, Sargodha and others (1989 SCM R 1178), Mian Bashir Ahmed v. Board of Revenue, Punjab (1989 SCM R 1427), Muhammad Tufail v. Assistant Commissioner/Collector (1989 SCM R 316), Amir Abdullah v. Superintendent of Police, and others (1989 SCM R 333), Muhammad Sarwar v. Assistant Commissioner/Collector; Tehsil Ferozewala and 3 others (1989 SCM R 1219), Muhammad Rafiq v. Province of the Punjab and another (1990 SCM R 1143), Dawood Ali v. Superintendent of Police and others (2005 SCM R 948), Syed Aqleem Abbas Jafari v. Province of Punjab through Secretary, Irrigation Department and others (2005 SCM R 1901), Nazir Ahmed v. Capital City Police Officer, Lahore and another (2011 SCM R 484) and Muhammad Jabal v. District Police Officer, Sahiwal and another (2011 SCM R 534). We have further observed that the provisions of section 249-A, Cr.P.C. could have been invoked only where the charge was groundless or there was no probability of conviction of the accused person and none of those factors were attended to by the courts below in these cases while acquitting the respondents or upholding their acquittal.

3. For what has been discussed above all these appeals are allowed, the impugned orders passed by both the courts below are set aside, the status of the respondents as accused persons in the relevant criminal cases is restored and the trial court is directed to proceed with their trials in accordance with the law. It may be clarified that if the respondents were on bail at the time of their acquittal then they shall submit fresh bail bonds before the trial court and if they were not on bail at the time of their acquittal then they shall be arrested and shall be dealt with in accordance with the law. The bail bonds and sureties of the respondents furnished in connection with the present appeals shall stand discharged.