Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Raja MUHAMMAD ZULFIQAR VS Respondent: THE STATE
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Aslam Riaz Hussain Title: Raja MUHAMMAD ZULFIQAR vs THE STATE Case No.: Criminal Petition No, 29 of 1983 Criminal Miscellaneous No, 4/Q of 1983 Date of Judgment:1986-05-10 Reported As: PLD 1986 Supreme Court 481 Result: Leave granted
Judgment ORDER ' ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the High Court, dated 11-1-1983, dismissing his application under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. Praying that proceedings against him under section 409, P. P. C. Be quashed. 2. Facts, briefly, are that the petitioner who was a Head Cashier in the Government Transport Service, Gujrat, was accused of having committed the breach of trust in respect of certain amounts of money 'during his tenure as the Head Cashier. He was, however, acquitted of the said charge on 29-4-1980. But subsequently, an audit of the accounts of the Department was carried out by the Audit Party which disclosed the commission of offence by the petitioner punishable under section 409/ 420/468/471, P. P. C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The matter was entrusted for trial to the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore. ' The petitioner filed an application under sections 249-A and 265-K, Cr. P. C. Which was dismissed by the trial Court. He then filed a quash-meat application under section 561-A, Cr. P. C., before the High Court for the quashment of criminal proceedings against him. 3. He urged before us that although provisions of section 403, Cr. P. C. Which provide that a person who is once acquitted of an offence cannot be tried again for the same offence, are not strictly applicable to this case. But since the offence is similar in nature to the one of which he was acquitted and the evidence of which the prosecution seeks to prove the subsequent case against him is the same as in the previous one, the principles of section 403, Cr. P. C. Would be attracted. For this contention he relied on Muham nod Ikram and others v. The State (1) and a number of other authorities mentioned in the said judgment.
---
## Page 2
4. There is no judgment of the Supreme Court on this case. As such this is a case of first impression requiring a well-considered judgment by this Court. Leave is, therefore, granted to consider whetter in the peculiar circumstances of this case the principles of section 403, Cr. P. C. Would be attracted to the petitioner's case. (11 P I. D 1965 Lab. 461