KHIZAR HAYAT vs THE STATE
This matter originated from a criminal petition filed by Khizar Hayat, who was convicted by a Magistrate for a single act of firing a shot at a complainant. The trial court convicted the petitioner under Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 337-D of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the same act, imposing separate punishments for each. Following the dismissal of his appeal by the Sessions Court and a subsequent criminal revision by the Lahore High Court, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court. He did not challenge the finding of guilt but contested the constitutionality of being punished twice for a single act. The Supreme Court identified a significant legal question regarding whether the provisions of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which may envisage multiple punishments for a single act, violate Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, which protects against double jeopardy. The Court granted leave to appeal to authoritatively resolve this issue of first impression and suspended the execution of the fines and Arsh payments pending final adjudication.
- Does the imposition of multiple punishments for a single act under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 violate the protection against double jeopardy guaranteed by Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can a court legally punish an accused twice for the same single criminal act under different sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 30, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-D, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Article 13, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' KHALIL-UR-RAHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- Khizar Hayat, Haq Nawaz, Ashiq Nawaz and Mazhar Hussain were accused of having got together in furtherance of their common intention. Of them, Ashiq and Mazhar were alleged to have raised Lalkaras whereupon Khizar accused had allegedly fired a rifle shot which had landed in the abdominal area of Akram P.W. Whereafter Haq Nawaz had also allegedly fired a shot at the said P.W. Which had, however, gone amiss. All four of them were consequently tried by a learned Magistrate at Multan exercising powers under section 30 of the Cr.P.C. Through his judgment, dated 23-12-2000 the said learned trial Magistrate granted benefit of doubt to Mazhar and Ashiq accused who were resultantly acquitted. He however found Khizar Hayat guilty of having fired a shot at Akram P.W. Convicted him under section 324/34 of the P.P.C.
And punished him with three years R.I. And a fine of Rs,10,000 or one months' R.I. In default of payment of fine. For the same shot fired by him, Khizar Hayat was further convicted under section 337-D of the P.P.C. And was ordered to suffer one year's R.I. And to pay an amount of Rs,86,667 as Arsh. Haq Nawaz accused was also found guilty though only under section 324/34, P.P.C. And was sentenced to undergo one year's R.I. And to pay a fine of Rs,5,000 or to suffer 15 days' R.I. In default of payment of the said fine. Both the said convicts impugned their said conviction and punishments before the learned Sessions-Judge of Multan through an appeal which was, however, dismissed by a learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his judgment, dated 7-2-2002. They then approached the Lahore High Court with Criminal Revision No, 80 of 2002 questioning the said conviction and punishments but the said criminal revision petition was also dismissed by the High Court through its judgment, dated 27-2-2003.
2. Haq Nawaz convict has not questioned the conviction andpunishments recorded against him any further and it is Khizar Hayat alone who has come up to this Court with his petition. He also does not challenge the finding of guilt recorded against him but questions only the Constitutionality of having been punished twice for the same single shot fired by him at Akram P.W.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at some length. The question whether the provisions of section 324 of the P.P.C. Which envisage more than one punishments for the same single act is not offensive of the provisions of Article 13 of the Constitution is a question of first impression which warrants authoritative pronouncement by this Court.
4. This petition is, therefore, allowed and to consider the above issue.
5. Since the interpretation and the Constitutionality of a provision of law is involved in this matter, therefore, notice shall also issue to the learned Attorney-General for all the four Provinces to be of assistance to this Court.
C.M.A.No, 99 of 2003 ' In the meantime the punishment of fine recorded against Khizar Hayat petitioner under section 324/34, P.P.C. Including the imprisonment directed in default of the payment of the said fine as also the punishment directing payment of Arsh under section 337-D, P.P.C. Shall remain suspended, subject to notice.